while CNN takes a more liberal perspective on the same issues. Much of the influence that the media could have on people, especially during elections, was a cause of alarm for many people. This led to the creation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Before the Fairness Doctrine, there had been numerous attempts at trying to prevent biases or influences from making their way through the media. First of all, the Communications Act of 1934 asked for television stations to provide “equal opportunities”
The United States Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC, introduced the Fairness Doctrine to make broadcasters report controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was equally balanced, honest, and fair. Broadcasting companies were required to provide a certain amount of airtime reporting accurate and fair information both for and against public issues. Broadcasters were not required to provide equal time for opposing views, but were required to present opposing viewpoints
Should the fairness doctrine be reinstated? What is the fairness doctrine some might ask? The fairness was a United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) introduced in 1949 that required television and radio broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. Contrasting points were to be introduced in what was viewed as—honest, equitable, and balanced and its main point was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. It was
In the 1969 case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the fairness doctrine that the Federal Communication Commission imposed on them in relation to a specific broadcast. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. aired that program on November 27, 1964, which included a personal attack on one author Fred J. Cook. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. refused to give Fred J. Cook his requested free time on air for rebuttal. As a result, the FCC supported Cook and ordered the radio station to
In 1949, the United States Federal Communications Commission introduced a policy referred to as the Fairness Doctrine in which “broadcast journalist was required to dedicate airtime to controversial issues of the public concern in a balanced manner” (p 19). The rationale for the policy was the belief that the media without the requirement to present information regarding controversial issues in an equitable and balanced manner would possess the power to sway public opinion in a manner that would
The "Fairness Doctrine": Fair? The United States of America embraces democracy that fosters the rights of the citizenry to unlimited access to information and the ability to exercise free speech. These values, upon which this country is built, were under test when the Federal Communications Commission established the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. As it turned out later, the provisions of this doctrine abridged the First Amendment rights and necessitated its repelling by FCC in 1987. So, why reinstate
moral standards for the twenty-first century in his essay " Universal Human Values: Finding an Ethical Common Ground." I agree with his list of standards: love, truthfulness, fairness, freedom, unity, tolerance, responsibility and above all respect for life. The first three of these needs, "love, truthfulness and fairness," are basic human values many of us are brought up with. So important are these lessons in childhood that the drive to carry them out is a natural instinct for most adults. L
regards his own work still as contractarian. Accordingly, it is peoples', citizens', or rational deciders' acceptance of the basic notions, methods, and results of Rawls's framework at its different stages (2) that is to establish his Justice as Fairness. Since every single one of us supposedly has already accepted a moral view of the world, though not the same one, it is in the end with regard to that moral view of the world, (3) or in Rawls's terms, that comprehensive theory of the good, (4) that
Does the Just War Theory provide sufficient moral justification for Christians’ involvement in war? The Just War Theory is a set of criteria that are used to judge whether a war is morally justifiable. It was St Augustine in the third century that formulated the Just War theory, and was formalised 10 centuries later by Thomas Aquinas. There are seven criteria by which a war can be judged to be just. Among the rules are Just Cause – there must be a very good reason for going to war, such as protecting
the punishment is adequately served when the criminal is truly reformed. A wrong-doer must be brought to justice. This statement is the founding belief of every legal system ever created, but does justice necessarily mean punishment? Justice is fairness in the way people are treated. Punishment is the penalty for doing something wrong. Using these definitions of the words justice and punishment, then Machiavelli's model of an eye for an eye seems to make sense. In order to justify a murder then
Fairness In the Workplace American society is slowly, but surely, moving towards equality in the workplace. In the past decade laws have been passed that prohibit discrimination in hiring, retaining and promoting employees based on race, gender, disability and religious beliefs. Although not all groups have been included yet, the movement towards a more just workplace is evident. Nowadays, almost every single employer will have the sign 'Equal Opportunity Employer' under the name of the company
common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all
of fairness because Orestes was motivated by Apollo, enraged by the murder of his father, and aggrieved by the vicious cycle of antisocial behavior that was running rampant in his family. Often, jurists, counselors, judges, politicians, and citizens alike are called upon to distinguish the difference (and subsequently choose) between the interests of fairness and justice. While Athena's decision might not have carried out the value of justice, it upheld the advantages of reasonable fairness. The
Equity, in the legal sense, is "justice according to principles of fairness and not strictly according to formulated law" (Gilbert 103). This definition, while easily understandable, presents us with a problematic - even dangerous - structure of opposition. Law and fairness are set at extreme ends of some continuum of justice, and are exclusive. The definition implies that one can have justice according to "fairness," or justice according to "formulated law." Yet if law is not inherently
of civil authority or the form that it should take, Professor Rawls is more interested in the principles that actuate basic social institutions —he presupposes authority and instead focuses on its animation. In short, Rawls argues that “justice as fairness” should be that basic animating principle. Imagine that rational actor X has been charged with the responsibility of developing the guiding principles for a totaly new type of social contract for today’s society. Is there a way for actor X to
result of his trying to understand the controversial issue. Later on, he starts to become more aware of how people act, and that their views are much different from his own. Justice, by definition, means fairness. In the case of Tom Robinson, whom Jem's father (Atticus) is defending, fairness is a boon that is not to be granted. Jem is devastated after realizing that justice does not always prevail. After Jem sees Tom be destroyed completely inequitably, he begins to question the ways of humanity
of my dear husband, Tom, it has failed miserably. Justice, although bittersweet, is the pie that society has been given the duty to serve. The once-solid pillars of fairness and humanity upon which our society was built are crumbling. The trials and tribulations of Tom Robinson have not only led me to lose faith in justice, fairness and humanity but removed my veil of ignorance and shown me the ignorant “whites” have the power to kill even the sweetest of mockingbirds. These injustices have begun
Danforth does not seem very fair in making judgements, as he believes he is honest and scrupulous whereas he is a strong believer of theocracy and his view of justice is warped. Another of the writer’s concerns is how a society ensures justice and fairness when it believes that its fundamental beliefs are under attack. John Proctor is at first one of the only characters in Salem who sees the injustices of the court. Due to his ethical and moral beliefs, he believes that by the end, the right
The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was created to test college-bound students on their mathematical and verbal aptitudes and to thus predict their ability to succeed academically in college. In the United States, the SAT is the oldest and most widely used college entrance test. It was first administered in June 1926 to only 8,040 high school students and is now taken by over 2 million students. Over the years, the SAT has become one of the most important tests of a teenager's life for admission to
one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society