Do u think the news should be force to discuss both sides of the story?

yes i think so because then they would only be getting it from one person and thats not fair ahaha

Oh please.....if a radio station wants to put conservative talk radio on 24/7 and they aren't asking the taxpayers to pay for it (like NPR) then what business is it of the government to regulate that? Whether you are a liberal or a conservative how is that not a limitation of free speech? If there is a market for liberal talk radio then people will support it through advertisers and fund it privately. If there isn't, then they won't.

I cannot even believe that we live in a nation where the "Fairness Doctrine" is being given intellectual consideration.

And I would be equally opposed to this if it were liberal talk radio that was so highly rated and they wanted to make it "fair" by forcing conservative talk to be present.

Oh, and what is next? Should we make sure that all TV shows are equally mixed with conservative preaching family value shows? And what about the movies? Should we institute that in Hollywood as well?

Come on--this is a ridiculous proposal. Liberal talk radio has not done well (yet they have done well where it really matters in that they have the Executive and both Legislative branches of Govt.) so can we please let this go. It's government mandating speech.

-Drew

tell both sides of the story??
Fox and NPR and MSNBC would be ruined

its okay for msnbc to be a campaign podium for obama though. is that fair?

fox was fair throughout the whole campaign.

The fairness doctrine is great, msnbc will hold up far better under criticizm than fox news. I would look forward to Lymbaugh and O'liely getting taken to the carpet.

I believe that they have wronged the American people. Newscasters are not supposed to lie.

There may have been a need for the fairness doctrine when there weren't 500 cable channels. There's never been a need for it on the radio. Let the people decide what stays on the air. I don't care for and rarely listen to Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the like. But they have every right to say what they want to say, the stations have every right to air them or not, and liberals have the same right to air a show that presents opposing views. The people can decide which propoganda they want to listen to.

About as fair as a gun to a knife fight.

depends on the person weilding the gun.

yeah completely ignore my comment on msnbc being fair. that channel was anything but.

Fox is the worst one.

Only fair news is free public station new's, and even they lean to one side or the other...Fox was horrible through the election, and what was it? 6 months ago their reporting was found to be bought...what kind of news is bought? And what is fair about it? By no means is MSNBC or the other's any better, but Fox is way, way, way off.

I want to be clear that my disdain for the Fairness Doctrine (aka, "The nobody likes what I'm saying so I'll cry until I get my chance to say it Doctrine) does not mean that I'm for slander on the air. If someone is slandered on air, a person has the right to bring suit against them for damages if they can prove that the statements were slanderous.

But if we adopt the Fairness Doctrine then National Public Radio needs to share equal time with conservatives, MSNBC, CNN, Air America, all of them need to make sure it is 50/50 down the line.

But most here will not agree with that. Madison, your support of the doctrine is especially troubling in that you seem to love to have the freedom to rip GWB at will. I think you SHOULD have the right and I don't believe anyone should take it away. But what if this site decided that for every liberal comment, there had to be a conservative one to balance it? What if that was the case on MTV or on any other channel?

It's ridiculous and I have not heard a thoughtful argument for it. Let people who own media companies have their say. If I you owned a company I might not want to support it but I would walk through fire to see to it that your right to say and act as you wanted (as it relates to free speech) was protected. That includes the rights for liberal talk.

This doctrine isn't about right v. left--this doctrine is about being told that the government has the right to dole out opinions to you in a fair and balanced way. That is ridiculous in every way.

-Drew

I disagree the media has been consolidated into to a few owners who have their own agendas like Fox news and rupert Murdock. He lobbied to get the laws changed so he could own it, he is an australian.

fox has different shows that cater to the left and right. even ones that are in the middle.

The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases these giant companies are vertically intergrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution.

These charts are derived in part from information gathered by Columbia Journalism Review’s Who Owns What? site, one of many excellent resources on the web regarding media ownership. Learn more about media ownership »

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539

You all need to check and see where NPR get's it's funding. It is not a government funded media outlet. Nor does it only support the left.

Oh and have you listened to NPR?

Most of their panels regularly feature members from a variety of news organizations including FOX.

According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming, although some of this money originated at the CPB itself, in the form of pass-through grants to member stations.[8] About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise about one-third of their budget through on-air pledge drives, one-third from corporate underwriting, and one-third from grants from state governments, university grants, and grants from the CPB itself.

Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government has been decreasing. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were being taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the federal government.