Is a media driven by profit bad for America? Do we need a new Fairness Doctrine, or regulation of the media?

I agree with Kelsey on this -- it's a slippery slope. There is no way we can enforce this without seriously infringing on the freedom of the press.

What I think both you and I can agree on is that we are experiencing a breakdown in civility and substance in the political discourse. But the solution isn't a new regulatory body. Let me make a philosophical argument...

From time immemorial philosophers have attempted to create Utopian societies where people could not help but do the right thing. Marxists believed that all of our antisocial tendencies arose from misdirected means and modes of production and a mal-distribution of capital resources. They truly believed that all we had to do was eliminate the self-defeating externalities and our natural impulse to selflessness would burst forth like spring flowers. Of course, they were mistaken.

There is nothing so disheartening as seeing something go dreadfully wrong and knowing there's really nothing one can do to stop the rot. As I remarked in an earlier question, I believe this rot in America is essentially elite and media driven. However, it is exacerbated by a public that is increasingly moving towards the extremes of disconnected apathy or passionate, knee-jerk ideology.

What did W. B. Yeats say, "The center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world?"

There is no way to prevent a free people from destroying their society. Encroaching on liberty will only increase ideological divisions. People have to choose to reform their habits; and nothing government can do will affect the necessary state. This is the limitation of political power.

And thus, at the end, (with great sadness) all I can do is quote Abraham Lincoln...

"If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we will live forever, or die by suicide."

Or maybe, I should quote "Pogo."... "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

All media. And the fairness Doctrine does no longer tension any television, radio, or newspaper to print or air some thing the vendors or managers did no longer elect to. you're perplexed. each and all the fairness Doctrine is approximately is to pass returned to pre-1993 standards of media possession. previous to 1993 a telecom enterprise became no longer allowed to very own extra suitable than a set sort of newspapers, radio stations, or television interior of a set geographic section. This became in place with a view to offer up the massive telecom companies from gaining monopolistic administration of the media in set factors and subsequently controlling all the media shops in an area and blocking off out all opposition. that's what has occured because of the fact the Telecom Act of 1993 became signed and that's what desires to be corrected and addressed.

Are Americans so gullible that they cannot intelligently distinguish propaganda from objectivity? -Yes

Do we need a new Fairness Doctrine?-No

Do we need to regulate that which can be labeled ‘News,’ just as we do drugs or airlines, to protect an undiscerning public from information snake-oil salesmen?-No

Would we be better served if the Fourth Estate, so essential to worthwhile public discourse, were structured as a non-profit enterprise, similar to the Supreme Court?-No

Or is the solution as simple as putting on our thinking caps, turning off the TV, and maybe reading a book or two? -Yes

And how does one make that happen? -I don't know.

This is a slippery slope.

Who gets to decide what's propaganda and what isn't?

Who gets to decide who's "right" and who isn't?

Who gets to decide what's "fair" and what isn't?

Why should the media, whose job is to hold government accountable, become another arm of the government?

Frankly, if people are stupid enough to believe everything they hear and see on Fox and MSNBC, they deserve what they get. The beautiful thing about the free market is that people can choose to be challenged and can choose to use unbiased media sources, or they can choose to use slanted media that conforms to their preconceived political opinions. That biased news outlets do so well these days says far more about US as media consumers than it does about the media itself. And I don't think the answer is for some nanny state to tell people what they can and can't watch.

I don't think anyone that a Fairness Doctrine would apply very, very specifically to would argue for the same sort of censorship to be applied to any or all other forms of media.

People are entitled to hear different sides of any issue or any news story and determine what makes the most sense for themselves. Eliminating that option through cute little laws that silence any significant and specific part of the nation's voice - whether you personally agree with it or not - eliminates just a little more of the freedoms of The People.

Maybe that doesn't matter, though - eliminating freedom. Maybe we'd be better off with a media that spoke with a single voice, even on opinion-based issues. Because we all know that everyone thinks exactly alike, and that people in positions of power, including those in the media, are all saints who can be wholly trusted to be 100% honest on every issue without any opposing voice to correct them.

Yeah. Right.

I only wonder what people who hate Rush, or Fox, or any other news organization that isn't state-run are so terribly afraid of that they need censorship to silence them.

more harm is done in the name of good than under any other guise... who would decide what was "fair"... the government?

you wish to replace peoples self imposed desire to listen to propoganda with a government inposed one?? NOT a good idea...

there is no perfect solution.. however, letting people have FREEDOM to choose for themselves is almost always the best idea!

the "fairness doctrine" is a bunch of crap! end of discussion