re: #5 riggbeck

The Fairness Doctrine was a badly flawed idea. If both sides (and why must there be only two sides?) must be represented in every controversial issue, then we sometimes get served a plate of steaming dingo’s kidneys. A side effect is bland journalism that’s afraid to offend.

Controversy is generated by interest groups. The obvious example is the push for teaching Creationism alongside Evolution in science. The mantra is: Teach the Controversy.

Nonsense. Teach the scientifically verifiable theory. And in the media, present the issues based on fact, not delusion.

Not having a Fairness Doctrine does mean that we get the nutjobs in splendid isolation, without the opposing arguments, but since when does rational argument matter to them? And from the other point of view, arguing with nutjobs gives them a spurious legitimacy, as if a flat earth was as likely as an oblate spheroid.

Terry Pratchett notwithstanding, who is a wise, humane, extremely funny writer, and therefore the polar opposite of a swivel-eyed nutjob.

It was also justified by the notion that the broadcast spectrum is a ‘limited’ publicly-owned resource. Since that public ownership hasn’t been exerted over a supposedly unlimited internet, there is no serious argument to force “fair” access. Freedom of the press works best for people who own presses.