Fairness doctrine changes talk radio and cable news? Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 by FCC right after World War II. Because lawmaker realized, the very powerful tool, TV, could be controlled by very few people, so congress wanted to prevent. The year 1949 was the age of a couple of commercial TV networks generally relying on the telephone company for live program distribution to affiliates across the network. There were no satellites or videotape, and no other programming sources were available other than locally originated live or film content. (SosemanNed, 2013) It required Broadcaster license holders to give time to issues public importance and provide political balance. It was challenged 1969, it was uphill by the Supreme Court. But, in 1987: President Ronald Reagan simply abolished it. It freed talk radio to provide ONLY the programing listeners were willing to support. Soon afterward, the very next year, Rush Limbaugh who are in Right Wing amount of charge, launched his own radio talk show. It had tremendous success.
Rush Limbaugh is a conservative American radio talk show host and political commentator. In his book and show, what he regards as Liberal policies as well as what he perceives Liberal bias in major U.S. media. He had an issue because he said “hope Obama fails” Around 20 million or 15 million listeners, and those are large numbers, so why Limbaugh is taken seriously and is believed to be influential.
Now, democrats in control, they Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine' they said talk show had become on sided. Some liberal politicians hate conservative talk radio. Democratic lawmakers who support the doctrine said it will help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.
The Fairness Doctrine has pros and cons. Many people say it is a defilement of the first amendment, other people say that it keeps the citizens knowledgeable about both sides of a matter. A lot of public say that it limits broadcasters from giving their own side; others say that is an excuse. Democrats are the main followers of the fairness doctrine because about 90% of talk radio is conservative. They don't want people listening to the radio and only hearing one side of a controversial issue, but the candidates in support of the doctrine will not go speak on a conservative radio show. The FCC required broadcasters to follow this doctrine to make sure that the citizens heard a truthful, balance, and fair view of the issues of public importance. These issues were typically very controversial and impossible for one to fully give their view unless somebody was there to debate, or the host could control what their views were. (FletcherDan, 2009) This is a very arguable issue itself and if the Fairness Doctrine was put once again in affect, radio shows would not be allowed to give their views on it because it confines the broadcasters to saying not what they believe or even know, but what is "equal" and "fair" for everyone. (GillKathy)
However, Obama and Chairman of FCC repeatedly said, there is not going to be another fairness doctrine. Even Though Obama says he is not interested in, he opposed to it, still many power politicians such as Bignaman and Pelosi, wants it back.
There were debate from debate.org about ‘should the Fairness Doctrine in the United States be reinstated?’ and, 48% Say Yes and 52% Say No. * People who said yes, mentioned, I believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated, in order for consumers to receive information of quality and honesty. For example, FOX "news" labels themselves as a "fair and balanced" news organization. However, they spend 24 hours a day, consistently lying to their viewers, and spreading false rumors about the President of the United States. Unfortunately, there are a small fraction of citizens in this country who believe the lies on this network. I believe some of what they have done on television requires jail time. They even do, at times, promote hatred and violence in the country. * And people who said no, mentioned, No, because with all the especially media outlets, it would not be relevant in today's society to enforce this. The Fairness Doctrine, at the time it was introduced, was very important to making sure all media outlets provided quality content. However, at the time it was introduced, the television channel selection was generally limited to less than 10 stations. In today's current society, where there are channels dedicated to animals, science, history, music and cartoons, it would not be conceptually relevant to require them to break with their niche and have a news program.
(debate)
According to the O’Reily about fairness doctrine, said can argue that there are more liberal voices in the media than conservative voices. The newspaper industry is overwhelmingly left, so is the internet and NBC is almost completely liberal, so as PBS, so as NPR. He thinks maybe Pelosi and others want total control and nobody listens because they are awful. He mentioned the fairness doctrine will never happen. Because the powerful media companies in USA, even most liberal media people realized all things are charade. Finally he said, if congress really wants to help the folks, it will pass the honesty doctrine.

References * debate. (n.d.). debate.org. Retrieved from http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-fairness-doctrine-in-the-united-states-be-reinstated * Fletcher, D. (2009, 2 20). Times US. Retrieved from U.S.: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880786,00.html * Gill, K. (n.d.). about.com. Retrieved from us policts: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/fcc_fairness.htm * Soseman, N. (2013, 1 18). broadcastengineering. Retrieved from newsroom: http://broadcastengineering.com/newsrooms/government-censors-broadcast-studios