Fairness Doctrine

I agree with the previous post. I think it is a good thing that there is no set law on a "Fairness". For the first thing, life is not fair. Most importantly though is the fact that telling media what they must cover, what they must say, what they must do is the exact opposite of telling them what they cannot say or do, which is almost as bad. Like the previous post says, anyone flipping through TV can find opposing views on the same issue. Anyone with an internet connection can find even more views and angles on issues and can find even more issues to talk about in the first place. The doctrine itself sounds very socialist and when the government is getting onvolved in content when it has nothign to do with obscenity is dangerous. I also think the fairness doctrine does not apply much anymore because in theory networks are not so much "public trustees" anymore. There are too many different ways to consume media than there were back when this was the reigning theory. Satellite TV, cable, the internet all can put out their own product that is less regulated, and therefore they can serve their own interests as well as their customers. In a sense any media outlet must care about the public in some way because the public consumes media, and you must know and cater to your audience. But the public can get vital information from so many other places that my local news station is not the first place I go to for vital information.