Trying to raise my kids the best I can

Monday, January 22, 2007

The Fairness Doctrine

When I first heard of the Fairness Doctrine (which is being reintroduced to congress under the name MORA: Media Ownership Reform Act) I thought it was so silly it was no threat. But apparently this thing is for real and I am really appalled. Basically this law would make some government agency responsible for listening to radio/watching TV and then judging "which side of an issue" is being presented and then force the radio/TV station to present the opposing side of the issue. Does that not reek of communism?! Is that not the opposite of free speech?? I am so horrified that this is even on the table in America where free speech is valued above almost every other freedom.

So what is the motivation behind this? Well the liberals are for it/sponsoring it and the conservatives are against it/horrified. So what it basically comes down to is that when liberals dominated the media they were OK, but as soon as radio air waves and occasional TV stations (like Fox) gained some conservative momentum they started looking for a way to "control it". When this bill first passed (between 1949-1987) liberal media dominated, so I am in no way naive enough to believe that this will be enforced fairly. Back when it first became law, the media was a much different playing field. There was no Internet. No cable. Only 16 TV channels. Obviously that is an entirely different world than we have open to us today. Today there is unlimited choice and multiple options for hearing different view points. This bill is antiquated and tyrannical. It must not pass.



  • At 5:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hiya -- just a random query/food for thought...

    "Does that not reek of communism?!"

    How is that communist? From a strictly academic point of view, it would be considered more capitalistic, as it promotes more "competition". Presenting more point of views is never a bad thing. Forcing it? Yeah, that sucks though. What is needed is a culture change where ideas from all spectrums are presented freely, in an objective way; not through legislature. However, considering the laws that have been passed recently (Patriot act, etc), then I think that this one is relatively acceptable.

    For your daily dose of free speech:

    By the way, I enjoy reading your blog, and I hope that you continue sharing you're thoughts openly in such an honest way :)


  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger Deena said…

    I'm so happy to have a new reader who left a comment!

    I see your point of view, but in my eyes: the goverment telling a media outlet it has to say anything in particular is too close to communism for my comfort. I could sort of see how this law was important decades ago (I think there were radio frequency/band width issues too that needed to be regulated) but it isn't necessary now.

  • At 5:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Indeed :)

    But once again, how is that communist?
    Controlling the media has nothing to do with communism. :)

    P.S Some people would argue that the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" stage of a nations conversion to communism includes control of the media - however, most will agree that those that have attempted/done this, better fit the description of fascists. (USSR, Cuba, etc.)

    P.S.S Sorry for ranting :)

  • At 11:55 PM, Blogger Deena said…

    Ah yes. Thank you, anonymous reader, for pointing out to my readers my total lack of knowledge of dictatorships. :-) If that's facist rather than communist then that's what I meant to say.


Post a Comment

<< Home

<BASE href=" /"> <META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="parenting blog, natural mother, all natural mother, parenting tips, parenting techniques, homeschool mother, christian mother, mothering tips, mothers blog "> <META NAME="Description" CONTENT="An All Natural Mother’s Guide to Parenting: Find information on Parenting.">