Welcome to Gaia! ::

A few days ago I heard about the fairness doctrine. Since I didn't know much about it I did some research on it to learn more. The fairness doctrine is used to make radio stations equal. For example if a republican talks on the radio about his views for an hour then a democrat must get equal time on the same station.
The Fairness Doctrine brings up a few questions that makes it harder to see why it would be so great. These are a few questions that I have not seen answered:

1.Who decides when a radio station is unfair?
2.What is defined as fair?

Another interesting thing I found was this:
"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50."
I think this could go either way, democrates could take up more time on a radio station or a republican could.

On last thing I want to bring up about the fairness doctrine is the first amendment. I have heard many comments on how it violates the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What are you're thoughts on it? Does it affect the first amendment? And is there any other information I might have missed?

Sources:
1st Amendment
Fairness Doctrine History
Fairness Doctrine: How we lost it and why we need it back
Why the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair

well if that was the case, does that mean more movies with a conservative leaning, more music with a conservative leaning?
Doubt it... those are 'artistic views' and we would be stifling their creativity.

Besides, there are liberal radio programs, Air America being the most heard about... unfortunatly nobody want's to hear them... that's why they went bankrupt in a matter of a few years, while rush, glenn beck, shaun hannity continue to go strong and even gain in popularity. The listeners have spoken both with rateings and their pocketbooks!

If the libs wanna continue to make radio shows, they should go for it! I encourage them to do so, but don't hold us conservatives back because there's no market for their point of view in one area on the mass media at large.

Besides... If anyone messes with my 3 hours of Glenn beck... they gotta answer to me!

Basically the intent of the "fairness doctrine" (sic) is to force radio stations to present leftist views even though the radio crowd isn't interested. Something Air America tried to do and found that they couldn't do and still profit. I don't know if it's just because the radio crowd is less idiotic than the non-radio crowd, or what. There is nothing about the so-called fairness doctrine that is fair at all. In a free market economy with freedom of speech, radio stations should be free to present what they wish to present, and when it's what people care to listen to, it profits. If after Rush Limbaugh a radio station is forced to broadcast Al Franken, for example, millions of radios nationwide will turn off or change the station, and advertisers will not pay (as Air America showed) to advertise on what listeners know to be complete and utter bullshit and won't listen to in the first place.

So basically, the point of the concept is to make it unprofitable for radio stations to have shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in an effort to get them off the air or reduce their coverage in whatever markets they can.