A large section of society? I haven't heard that. The people I know look at it as entertainment.

They do not pretend to be a legitimate news source and shame on anyone who thinks they are. I would think comedy would be excempt

So, when Chris Matthews said (acting as a reporter and not a pundit) that Barack Obama's speech gave him a chill down his leg--that was good solid non-biased news? Give me a break, Winx.

-Drew

I think the fairness doctrine will cage alot of media monsters or at least force them to admite when its their humble opinion. I am all for it and think it is way over due.

It's true. And not just them. You'd be amazed at how many people get their news from Jay Leno.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all entertainment. Short of slander and blatant lies, let the people decide. If there's enough public outrage, another voice will show up to counter....because it will be profitable.

I'm not afraid of Fox or Limbaugh or O'reilly.

Madison--just so we are clear--you want CNN to have as many conservatives as liberals, and MSNBC as well? I get that you think that FOX is a monster but I want to make sure that you want ALL of the news reports to give equal time?

-Drew

Kind of an indictment of society and why we're even having this discussion. IMO

Fox is so far right CNN looks left when in fact they are moderate. I suspect it will be much harder for fox to go fair than CNN or any other broadcaster. Fox has been trying to rehab its name since the country has taken a turn to the middle, its a matter of survival to them to pretend to be fair and ballanced. The bias of fox news is well documented all over the net

its the demographics

they'll follow the biggest audience for the advertising revenue

Jay Leno? OMG! God help us!

I don't recall that. I'm not sure I saw it.

So, Oprah and Jon Stewart are entertainment shows and not media new per se? Well then are Rush, and Hannity (Alan Colmes has a show as well) and all of the other shows on radio. If we are going to say that the litmus test should apply only to "news" shows then fine--no worries but if entertainment is exempt then the Fairness Doctrine cannot touch shows like Larry Elder, or Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity or the like. None of those folks are "press" in the traditional sense. The aforementioned shows are entertainment and while I don't listen to Rush or Hannity myself, I support their right to voice whatever it is their listeners are willing to pay for via sponsorship just like I do any and all liberal shows. If people don't want to support liberal talk-entertainment then maybe the product they are selling is not something people are interested in buying. If that's the case then, Oh well--that's life.

"I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I'm the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who's usually smiling because it's TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event.

Besides, why shouldn't I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I'm fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I've ever worked." --SUSAN ESTRICH

-Drew

I wish it were that simple

Former CBS producer Don Dahler resigned from Fox after executive John Moody ordered him to change a story to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks. (Moody says the change was journalistically justified--New York, 11/17/97.) According to the Columbia Journalism Review (3-4/98), "several" former Fox employees "complained of 'management sticking their fingers' in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes." Said one: "I've worked at a lot of news organizations and never found that kind of manipulation."

Jed Duvall, a former veteran ABC reporter who left Fox after a year, told New York (11/17/97): "I'll never forget the morning that one producer came up to me, and, rubbing her hands like Uriah Heep, said, 'Let's have something on Whitewater today.' That sort of thing doesn't happen at a professional news organization." Indeed, Fox's signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.


"In the D.C. bureau [at ABC], we always had to worry what the lead story would be in the New York Times, and God forbid if we didn't have that story. Now we don't care if we have that story." Stories favored by the journalistic establishment, Kim Hume says, are "all mushy, like AIDS, or all silly, like Head Start. They want to give publicity to people they think are doing good." --New York magazine(11/17/97) quoting Kim Hume, Fox News Channel Washington bureau chief

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

Well, it did happen. (I was wrong, he said thrill, not chill.) I'm surprised you have not heard about it as it was pretty well noted. Still, that does not answer the question. Was Chris Matthews comment what one would expect (or should expect) from good non-biased journalism?

Transcript of "Thrill up the leg" by Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

The right-wingers don't look at them as entertainment.

I'm not saying if I'm for or against the Fairness Doctrine.
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Between the 1940s and 1980s, federal regulators attempted to guarantee that the broadcasting industry would act fairly. The controversial policy adopted to further that attempt was called the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was not a statute, but a set of rules and regulations that imposed controls on the content of the broadcasting media. It viewed radio and television as not merely industries but servants of the public interest. Enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the fairness doctrine had two main tenets: broadcasters had to cover controversial issues, and they had to carry contrasting viewpoints on such issues. Opponents of the doctrine, chiefly the media themselves, called it unconstitutional. Although it survived court challenges, the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987 by deregulators in the FCC who deemed it outdated, misguided, and ultimately unfair. Its demise left responsibility for fairness entirely to the media.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fairness-doctrine

IMO
People can choose to listen to Limbaugh, O'Reily, and Hannity (whoever he is) because they agree or disagree with their opinions just like they choose to watch ER instead of say, Boston Legal. And the network heads can choose to have these programs on their network because they agree with them, too. But the news, no matter what station it's on, should be an unbiased public service. Period!
I agree with Quiet, it's all about the money!

Well, if the right-wing thinks of them as news then that is an issue for the right wing--but that does not mean that it should be banned. My issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that I want free speech to be preserved for both the right and the left!!

-Drew

News... like history, is not unbiased.