Skip to the content
- a) I disagree that the fairness doctrine should not have been initially removed. At the time that this change occurred, the political climate was not as partisan as today, and the fairness doctrine only represented a potential threat to the concept of freedom.
- b) I strongly disagree that the fairness doctrine was far from fair. The actual values underlying the concept was firmly entrenched in the desire for bipartisan equality.
- c) I strongly agree that something like the fairness doctrine needs to be established in the U.S. The political atmosphere has changed since the original was abolished, and there is now an major risk of media bias emerging due to political influence and media consolidation efforts.
- d) I strongly agree that the media sometimes needs regulating. However, I do not believe that focus is appropriately given to the issues that deserve regulation, such as political influences and ideologies, as opposed to the traditional concerns about swear words and nudity. Other than content, the media industry should certainly be regulated more strictly to avoid the inherent deficiencies of media consolidation.
- e) I strongly disagree that democracy depends on free press. The concept of democracy is supported by equality of voice, and we have become well aware that unregulated media can lead to an extreme bias in the presentation of information, especially of a political nature. This inequality is not representative of the public, as it is supported by only a small number of powerful influences.