The Fairness Doctrine Essay

Taxes are unavoidable because government is needed and government operates on tax revenues. The FairTax is a tax-inclusive progressive national retail sales tax that replaces every other federal tax in America. The new national sales tax would be 23%. Although there have been some questions as to whether the sales tax rate is 23% or 30% and they stem from the meaning of tax-inclusive and tax exclusive. The sales tax in Florida is an example of an exclusive tax because it works of a preset base. If a person buys something for 1$ and pays a .30$ tax on it the sales tax is 30 percent because it is .30$ on the dollar. With the inclusive tax the item would cost 1.30 because the tax is included with the cost. The tax rate of 23% is calculated by

The Fairness Doctrine, which was established in regard to political ad attacks– commercials devoted to the negativity of an opposing candidate– provided a candidate the right to respond to attack ads in broadcast programming. Because of concerns with the right of free speech, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have never imposed such a regulation to stop attack ads. The only rule implemented on all political message content was that they require sponsor identification.

In the early 1930`s after the splendid 1920`s in America news finally became broadcast on televisions. This advancement in technology, and receiving information faster than before made it an ideal site to spread beliefs. As the entertainment industry was blooming TV shows could sublimely share beliefs on certain aspects in life. Some more frequent than others with politics being near the top of that hierarchy. Along with this in mind on television and talk radio the hosts for the most part are allowed to speak there mind catering democratic values. Therefore, opinions share on both platforms and other places as well, where the public is able to react to it are worthwhile. Since it allows democratic values to continued to evolve on major viewing

The internet is a resource with ever expanding content and applications for everyone to use however, net neutrality rules on the free use of internet remains a debated topic. The “Point/Counterpoint: Network Neutrality Nuances” presents Barbara van Schewick’s supportive argument on the applications of net neutrality rules, and the consequences of failing to do so. Schewick’s engaging justifications are well researched with arguments containing significant amounts of examples, strong and simplistic diction to reach her audience, and clean and smooth transitions to move between ideas.

Motivation is the driving force behind everyone’s actions and it influences the level of efficiency that everyone performs said actions with. While hoping to explain just how individuals become and remain motivated in the first place, many have developed theories. One theory, in particular, was introduced by John Stacy Adams in 1969 and it is referred to as the Equity Theory.

A third theory on campaign finance reform is that of FCC imposed free or reduced-rate broadcast time for candidates. This theory argues that the largest single expense of campaigns is television advertising. Free or reduced rate broadcast time for candidates would eliminate much of the need for raising large amounts of campaign funds. Radio and television airwaves are public property and therefore broadcasters have a responsibility to provide programming in the public interest. Free or reduced-rate broadcast time fits neatly with the requirements that broadcasters serve the "public interest." Because Congress won't act, the Federal Communications Commission should.

In the mid-twentieth century, the news media were one of America’s most trusted institutions. The 1956 American National Election Study (ANES) found that 66% of Americans thought newspapers were fair, while only 27% said they were unfair. These views were bipartisan, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats viewing newspapers as fair. When the Roper Organization asked a similar question about network news in two 1964 polls, 71% and 61% of the public thought it was fair, while just 12% and 17% thought it was unfair. In 1973, when the General Social Survey (GSS) began regularly measuring con dence in various national institu- tions, only 15% of respondents had “hardly any” con dence in the press.

On 23 April 2014, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier position on net neutrality. Municipal broadband could provide a net neutral environment, according to Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology

A black student has been waiting for that letter of acceptance from the college of her choice. She receives that letter and gets in. At the same time a female white student is also waiting for her letter of acceptance from that same college. The white student receives a rejection letter even though she had higher test scores and a better GPA than the black student. Was this fair to the students? Was it the best outcome for the country in the long run? Many minority students are accepted into colleges and law schools due to their race while at the same time white students are rejected because colleges have to make room for these minorities. The question many colleges are facing now is whether race

It can be said that the mainstream American news media holds objective reporting in a high regard, and rightfully so. Such a journalistic culture finds its roots in the Fairness Doctrine, a policy implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949(Boliek) in response to muckraking and irresponsible journalistic practices of prior times. The Fairness Doctrine mandated that news organizations provide contrasting views of controversial issues in an equal manner. Though the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, and its official language removed in 2011, the effects of this policy still seem to play a significant role in the mainstream media (Boliek). It can be argued that the residual effects of this policy have mutated into a heavy emphasis on fairness and balance (in some cases, and in other cases not as much) that has made many journalists lose their focus on what objectivity actually means.

In just the past few decades, the internet has grown from a new technology, into a staple resource for billions. When anything grows from a service to a necessity, important decisions have to be made about regulating and limiting the control any given party has over them or risk abuse of power. When it comes to the internet, net neutrality is at the forefront of these regulations. Net neutrality, is the idea that access to the internet should be unrestricted and free; According to Emily Hong and Sarah Morris “In the simplest of terms: the FCC rules [on net neutrality] mean no fast and slow lanes on the internet, no blocking of content, and no provider throttling your streaming

The purpose of this paper is to re-evaluate the history of American public broadcasting. Particularly this paper focuses on an important female political figure and two organizations that contributed to build the foundation of American public broadcasting. Analyzing each of their roles in building the principle of public broadcasting in the U.S. provides insights by which to consider the basics of media industries today.

The controversy, at the moment, rests on a legal distinction. A federal lawsuit filed by Verizon has forced the FCC into a corner by creating a standard under which effective net-neutrality rules­­—which ensure all internet traffic is treated equally—can only be reached, according to most analysts, by classifying the internet as a "common carrier," or in other words, a public utility. Such a distinction would allow the FCC to demand that internet service providers, like Comcast or Verizon, are not allowed to

Waldman proclaims that while the Conservatives had already started to lobby against the media and build up their broadcast syndicates, the liberals still "expected journalists to hold a broadly liberal worldview.” While the left wing initially saw reporters as allies, that presumption turned out to be misguided. Liberals were outraged when it appeared that Ronald Reagan manipulated the media with the help of political personnel. Then again, when he vetoed an effort to restore the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 which gave "conservatives a forum the left couldn't match" (Waldman). The movement for more ideological representation in the media incited the increase in biased media. There is an imbalance between the two parties, but both aspire to “present a unified message and exert a greater influence over the media" (Waldman). The successful entity, The Center for American Progress, on the left, had a budget of $26.3 million in 2008, whereas the closest rival on the right, the Heritage Foundation, spent $64.6 million in 2008. Additionally, there is a difference in the number of times the parties' think tanks were quoted in 2008, the conservatives' made up thirty-one percent whereas liberals' made up twenty-one percent of all citations (Waldman). The constant rivalries between the two political parties dominate the news via partisan broadcasts. In essence, liberals and conservatives aim

Me personally I always get caught in the middle of bullshit that gets you in trouble.