Could someone explain to me in layman's terms what the Fairness Doctrine is and what is the big debate on it?

[Mr. Smartypantsâ„¢]

All I know is that conservatives hate and it liberals want it.

[Carbonator]

Free speech vs. regulated free speech (making it non-free speech).

[C.M.217]

It is an attack on free speech. It basically says that a t.v. or radio station must devote equal time to both conservative and liberal points of view. It will be specifically engineered to destroy talk radio, and will do little to stop liberals from still running amok on t.v.

According to the people pushing it, CNN and MSNBC are fair and balanced.

Its an attack on the first amendment. It a censorship doctrine.

[Jay]

It has to do with presenting "contriversial" views on the radio. If you present side A of the issue you have to also give equal time to side B. So in a way, it's censorship.

The reason that conservatives hate it and it liberals want it is due in part becasue conservative talk radio does much better than liberal talk radio.

[17 weeks w/ #1]

from what I understand, it's a mandate saying that any talk radio station who tends to be of a more conservative nature would have to give equal time (down to the minute) of liberal viewpoints so it's "fair". The problem is.... that limits your right to free speech because they're telling you you can only talk about what you want if you talk about something else for an equal amount of time.

[Matt W]

The "Fairness" Doctrine is based on the old concept of equal time. Radio is primarily a haven for conservative commentators. Liberals would like to see the radio time forced to accept liberal commentators as well. This was tried by Air America but could not find an audience and therefore was not commercially successful. Since the market cannot find a solution that seems "fair" to liberals they feel it should be forced on radio. Interesting that given the wild liberal bias to broadcast and cable television, print and, if we are to believe the blogs, internet, that it would be necessary to block the one medium where conservative thought is supreme. Sadly, this one not an attempt to find "fairness", if it was we would see similar attempts to reform the other media, it is an attempt to squelch conservative thought and, as such, is hardly an example of fairness at all.

I hope that helps.

[margaret h]

It is based on someone "deciding " what is balanced.
That is a subjective analysis to begin with when you consider that the networks all considered that their coverage of the elections was fair but 70% of the Americans surveyed thought that they were biased toward Obama and were trying to elect him.
So who was right?
And would those people get to decide for purposes of a "Fairness" Doctrine if we went back to one?

The proposed Fairness Doctrine would force radio stations to give equal time to what someone (who?) would consider an opposing viewpoint.
So if Rush Limbaugh had three hours of broadcast time, the station would be required to give three hours of time to someone who would presumably represent an opposing view.
What is the opposing view?

The biggest problem is that the syndicated Limbaugh show MAKES MONEY for the stations that carry him.
Should a station be forced to carry a show that does NOT make money?
"Liberal" talk radio has a poor record of profitability.
Hardly anybody listens to it.
Its Arbitron rating are terrible.
Stations only have 24 hours of air time during which they have to cover their costs and make a profit.
Why should they be forced to lose money by carrying 3 hours of bad shows that no one will buy advertising time on?

There is another clause that will force stations to place local activists on their Boards of Directors.
Those board members have no connections to the station ownership.
They will be able to make programming decisions that affect profitability but their role is to decide what the station "should" provide to educate the community about things like diversity, social issues, etc., in the name of "accountability."
If listeners don't want to hear this stuff, they turn off their radios.
Profitability goes down.
Imagine listening to your favorite rap music or whatever station in the car and they suddenly do a 10 minute program about health issues for the elderly.
How quickly would you turn the station off?

All of the Fairness Doctrine provisions will be conditions of stations continuing to keep their broadcast licenses.
If they lose them, they can be re-sold to other investors,

This is a powerful weapon to silence dissent.
The Obama campaign used it successfully during the primaries and general election, threatening TV and radio stations with challenges to their licenses if they ran ads which the campaign considered "misleading."
The stations stopped running them rather than risk the high costs of defending their licenses even though there was nothing wrong with the ads.
The threat was intimidating enough.
Chilling, huh?

[Smudgeward]

Now there's one Orwell missed: FAIRSPEAK
You question ze party line? Do not question ze party line, it is not Fair!