The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated during the Regan administration. Was this a good idea or just another way to infringe on freedom of speech for citizens and the media? It was instituted so that the public received both sides of an issue and there was fairness in reporting. If someone wrote against a war for instance another person could respond on why they supported the war. This was the purpose of doctrine. In 1985 it was repealed by the FCC they said they found the doctrine censored coverage of controversial issue.
The FCC has taken this 83 regulation doctrine off the books saying it is outdated. Since it has not been used for over two decades it like a dusty old library book left too long on the shelf. Religious groups don't like the doctrine because they may have to air opposing viewpoints. Well if we have to listen to their viewpoint then maybe they should listen to other.
When one group dominates and others opinion are squelched this is called censorship not freedom of speech. Kennedy said that the Fairness Doctrine was to purge as many right wing conservative voices as possible. It may also have been a way to get both viewpoints aired and challenge the conservatives to listen to other opinions.
After the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the Regan administration, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have never reinstated it. Many media companies did not like the fact that government regulated news and opinions. Still today without the Fairness Doctrine corporations and those organizations with money often shape the news we see and hear. The gun industry for instance does not want to see news about how dangerous guns are and that laws should be passed to ban owning them. On the other hand those against guns want to change the law. These groups would not put there advertising dollars where news hurt or disputes their agenda.
Still if the media is controlled by the one group the Fariness Doctrine might level the field so that alternative news and view points can filter through. It might give third party political groups a chance to express their opinion and social service organizations a chance to get their voice heard. It might make some of us listen to other people's perspective instead of thinking we all are same. You might practice one religion but why not hear the opinions of a man or woman from that disagrees or has a different belief than yours.
Is it really fair reporting to only express one side of the story? This is especially true in politics and news reporting. Many local stories about politics, public education, taxes, social service organizations get lost with the constant drum of national news. Instead of the Fairness Doctrine being monitored by FCC it should be watched by citizens and the media to be sure that reporting news becomes fair again. Still would this really change anything or has the damage done gone too far? It really disturbs many citizens how biased reporting and news has become over the last 25 years.