by Not Here

Created on: November 25, 2008

The fairness doctrine is not aimed at silencing conservatives, but rather aimed at quieting any form of dissent. To be clear, this policy effectively says that it will make things equal, by forcing media to display both sides of an argument. When did there become only two sides to any particular argument? In a world with so many different causes to particular events with a profound influence on our society, how can there only be two ways of solving most problems. Currently when the majority of our media present an argument, especially regarding legislation, it is either for something or against it but never does it display any other alternatives to solving whatever problem the legislation is intended to correct or assist. Granted some outlets only their opinion, but the most of our general public is smart to realize when they are hearing such one sided opinions. Regulating it for people, the government believes lack the ability to decide for themselves, is a cheap way to effectively gain control of the United States media as a whole.

I would argue that by imposing a doctrine, to ensure certain opinions are heard, you would severely limit the already sparsely heard voice of the independent thinking American. Aside from my own personal opinions, the fairness doctrine is clearly in violation of our first amendment right to freedom of speech, along with the constitutional protection of a free press. Through the commanding of what stations have to allow on their broadcast, the government is in fact censoring the press. The patriot act already took away many civil liberties that help to define America and this doctrine helps to strip away more of our publics unique freedoms.

The doctrine officially strips away more of our guaranteed rights at best, but at worst it could be manipulated into deciding what opinions are fit for public consumption. Any lawmaker who would vote for this Orwellian 'doublethink' piece of legislation does not believe in the principles that America was founded on. Who would have the job of deciding what was proper to air? Who would decide what opinions needed to be better represented? Would religious pastors be forced to censor their sermon if it went against government mandated political correctness? Would a Christian radio station then have to allow time for Jews, Muslims, Scientoligists, Buddhists, and atheists in the name of fairness?

Media outlets in this country are run as private companies. Their goal is to report the news how they see it to please their viewers, so that they watch the commercials. Companies purchasing advertisement time allows the particular type of media to hopefully turn a profit. Those same companies advertise through the outlet for the express purpose of targeting that outlets individual viewers. Our news coverage would transform into a high school public speaking class debate. The moderator(effectively the teacher) would ask both sides for their opinion in an orderly manner, giving each the same allotted amount of time. That is not American, but something closer to British news where the government has laws against people expressing bias i.e. a personal opinion.

To say that this doctrine would be used specificaly to muzzle the far right neo-conservatives is a gross understatement of the potential nasty ramifications that could be a direct result of this legislation. The bill could and I argue would be used by whatever particular party controlled the government at that time. That does not sound like anything remotely close to liberty at all and anyone who believes that such legislation is benificial should perhaps move to a country with a state run media, so as they will always know the correct opinion to hold.

Learn more about this author, Not Here.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.