(from Wikipedia):
---------------------- The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.
The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.
...In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.
------------------------
[end quote]
There you go. That explains what has happened to "the news."
How could President Reagan allow that?
And why didn't President Clinton or Pres. Bush fix this?
Probably the same reason I didn't think too much about it until now.
You grow up in a world where you're accustomed to "Trusting" the "news."...
As a private citizen -- I'm just busy doing stuff.
and as Leaders and Politicians,
they probably don't want to be perceived as arguing with the media --
like they don't want the story-line to get started:
he's trying to change the laws about broadcasting because he doesn't like something they said about him...
Well there'll be criticism -- so what?
As one of my co-workers says, "There comes a time when you just have to Man-Up, and do it."
(When I first read that paragraph in Wikipedia, I thought, "How could FCC just 'abolish' a law?" -- but --
then realized --
it wasn't a law, was a policy. Their own policy.
Somebody had an "agenda" there, and it needs to be reversed.
The Fairness Doctrine needs to be a law, passed by Congress and the President.
(Hope to hear from Phil in Wales on this topic -- how do they do it in U.K.?)
-30-
In the UK we have the Press Complaints Commission, that you can complain too but I'm not sure as to the extent of its power. When a judgement is upheld against a newspaper the newspaper has to print the judgement - but it seems to be a voluntary arrangement.
ReplyDeleteWe have OFCOM for the television companies which seems to now have regulatory powers and covers not just fairness but competitiveness in the communication industries. For example, occasionally you'll here the BBC having to broadcast a summary judgement that has gone against it - for example, it hasn't gone to the effort of giving someone a chance to make their case, so that would cover some of what you talk about.
It is however still contentious as there is also the concern over freedom of speech and the worries that constant right-to-reply may stifle this.