A new Fairness Doctrine?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by chewybrian »

The Fairness Doctrine was imposed in the era of the not yet obese Orson Welles (late 1940's) with the rationale that the public needed to be protected from Rockefeller types who might have flooded the airwaves with their own political or religious beliefs. Since we had so few options for news and entertainment back then, it was important that they gave some voice to opposing views, and were of some service to the community. The government needed to step in and limit free speech, 'they' said, in order to save it, because new media outlets distorted speech by concentrating its power too tightly.

The era of parachute pants (late 80's) marked the end of the Fairness Doctrine, as we were clearly smart enough to figure out what to wear and how to think for ourselves at that point. With so many vehicles for broadcasting views, we could, 'they' said, rest assured that everyone could be heard and nobody should have felt brainwashed. Did it work out for us, though? Hasn't the sea of options simply allowed most folks to 'validate' their own views and ignore others' views without seriously considering them? Has too much freedom caused us to lose touch with objective reality, and lose the ability to make just compromises for the common good?

Fast forward to the era of the 'Tide Pod Challenge'. Say a new enlightened third party has taken control of congress, and they ask you to head a panel to decide if any new Fairness Doctrine should be implemented for our time.

Do you see a rationale for such action? If so, what ideas would you propose?

Is forcing opposing views into the public eye a form of censorship, or just the opposite? Is censorship, or 'reverse censorship' ever justified, and do we need it now? A little censorship is still censorship, so this is pretty serious stuff. What is your recommendation?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by Eduk »

Sadly fairness is hard to define and even harder to enforce. Plus even if it was possible I wouldn't trust the government to be able to do it.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by chewybrian »

Eduk wrote: June 7th, 2018, 1:29 pm Sadly fairness is hard to define and even harder to enforce. Plus even if it was possible I wouldn't trust the government to be able to do it.
True, but that's why I threw out the Fairness Doctrine as an example where censorship was arguably necessary and effective, yet imposed with restraint.

I think it's easy to be a boiled frog and not realize how far we have fallen since it went away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9O3OBmeLs

^A very serious issue discussed with respect; asking tough questions without calling names, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beuvViuwpsE

^Teeball questions to push an agenda, and these kids are being exploited (not picking a side; you could do the same thing in the other direction, but should a news show operate this way?)

You could also find many examples where decorum and respect for others' right to have a different opinion has gone away.

We *could* take action. If we should, what should it be, would it work, and is it justified?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by Eduk »

I do take action. I rely on the news only to give a broad strokes summation of important issues. I rely on some of the specifics such as time and date and direct quotes and certain numbers. But the news is 99% conjecture which I assume to be wholly wrong or at best right, but by accident. As in I give the interpretation very very little credence.
Subjects which interest me I try to find actual information elsewhere.
It is awkward that I know of no good news sources for certain issues. But it is better to know that I don't know then wrongly think that I do know.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by chewybrian »

Eduk wrote: June 8th, 2018, 5:23 am I do take action. I rely on the news only to give a broad strokes summation of important issues. I rely on some of the specifics such as time and date and direct quotes and certain numbers. But the news is 99% conjecture which I assume to be wholly wrong or at best right, but by accident. As in I give the interpretation very very little credence.
Subjects which interest me I try to find actual information elsewhere.
It is awkward that I know of no good news sources for certain issues. But it is better to know that I don't know then wrongly think that I do know.
Your outlook seems correct. You are (usually, presumably) able to see the truth or falseness, or hidden agenda, in ideas presented to you. You should be considered for "Guardian" in Plato's Republic. But...

Are you the one for whom such law would be written? Aren't you projecting your outlook onto others who perhaps don't share it? If someone spends 3 hours a day listening to Rush Limbaugh, are they likely to carefully consider information before assenting to it? Think of younger people, or those with little education or intellect, or of people in a community of shared beliefs which define opinions. Are they able to withstand these assaults and maintain a wider perspective?

Does discourse need guardians, or are we all qualified and strong enough to charge in just as we are? We have no second thoughts about regulating the production and sale of goods or services to protect people from themselves. Think of something like laws against predatory lending practices--are they valid, or do people have a right to sign on for any fees, interest rates, etc. that they wish to accept? Aren't many of us equally ignorant of the nuances of politics or philosophy as we are of those of finance (which is arguably much simpler)?

The question is not whether you would be a worthy guardian or not, but if others might need a guardian or not, and, if so, does the need justify any action?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by chewybrian »

I guess I'll answer my own question to see if it sparks anyone else to answer.

I would recommend only that we put out public service announcements about respectful discourse, along the lines of those about the dangers of drunk driving, or the effects of smoking. Show clever scenarios where someone could have benefited from hearing an opposing view, and their closed mind instead led them into trouble, or they ignored good advice because it was given disrespectfully.

"Hey, don't use that elevator, fatty!"
"Don't tell me what to do!"
(Fat man falls down open elevator shaft).

Actually, it should be more clever than that, but you get the idea. That's my only recommendation. Just try to get the word out that you might learn something from the other side, and that they can only learn from you if you present your views with respect and civility.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by Eduk »

Sorry chewybrian, I had meant to respond. It is of course a very complex question but I lean towards my previous answer that a government cannot perform the task adequately and are more likely to cause harm than good. Individuals however could take it upon themselves to do their best, and I think to a large extent people do. It is not a perfect system.
If I could do anything it would probably involve the school syllabus. But most of the ideas off of the top of my head are hopelessly idealistic.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by -1- »

chewybrian wrote: June 12th, 2018, 7:57 am I guess I'll answer my own question to see if it sparks anyone else to answer.

I would recommend only that we put out public service announcements about respectful discourse, along the lines of those about the dangers of drunk driving, or the effects of smoking. Show clever scenarios where someone could have benefited from hearing an opposing view, and their closed mind instead led them into trouble, or they ignored good advice because it was given disrespectfully.

"Hey, don't use that elevator, fatty!"
"Don't tell me what to do!"
(Fat man falls down open elevator shaft).

Actually, it should be more clever than that, but you get the idea. That's my only recommendation. Just try to get the word out that you might learn something from the other side, and that they can only learn from you if you present your views with respect and civility.
Where is the respect and civility in your example? One calls the other fatty, and other rebuffs haughtily.

How would you like to hear you are fat, or, conversely, that you are a control freak?

I actually am not committed either way to your proposal, as I don't understand what you are proposing.

But your example shows only either that you have a disregard to your own opinion, or else that you can't tell disrespect and lack of civility from respectful speech and civil discourse.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by ThomasHobbes »

One man's liberator is another man's terrorist.
One man's left wing looney is another man's balanced centrist.
Whose voice gets determined as moderate? And by whom?
It was not long after Mr Wells' ideas of Fairness that the establishments view of what was fair and balanced saw 100s of artists and public figures blacklisted by what is now known as "The McCarthy Witch hunts".
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by chewybrian »

-1- wrote: June 13th, 2018, 3:38 pm
chewybrian wrote: June 12th, 2018, 7:57 am I guess I'll answer my own question to see if it sparks anyone else to answer.

I would recommend only that we put out public service announcements about respectful discourse, along the lines of those about the dangers of drunk driving, or the effects of smoking. Show clever scenarios where someone could have benefited from hearing an opposing view, and their closed mind instead led them into trouble, or they ignored good advice because it was given disrespectfully.

"Hey, don't use that elevator, fatty!"
"Don't tell me what to do!"
(Fat man falls down open elevator shaft).

Actually, it should be more clever than that, but you get the idea. That's my only recommendation. Just try to get the word out that you might learn something from the other side, and that they can only learn from you if you present your views with respect and civility.
Where is the respect and civility in your example? One calls the other fatty, and other rebuffs haughtily.

How would you like to hear you are fat, or, conversely, that you are a control freak?

I actually am not committed either way to your proposal, as I don't understand what you are proposing.

But your example shows only either that you have a disregard to your own opinion, or else that you can't tell disrespect and lack of civility from respectful speech and civil discourse.
I was giving an example of incivility, and that was the point of the exercise. It is intended to show that the person could have benefited from the message, but the tone caused them not to listen to the message. It's a "what not to do", like a "don't drink and drive" message. It's supposed to be a bad example. It all seems simple and clear enough.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: A new Fairness Doctrine?

Post by -1- »

chewybrian wrote: June 13th, 2018, 9:19 pm I was giving an example of incivility, and that was the point of the exercise. It is intended to show that the person could have benefited from the message, but the tone caused them not to listen to the message. It's a "what not to do", like a "don't drink and drive" message. It's supposed to be a bad example. It all seems simple and clear enough.
Thanks, got it.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021