EXPERIMENTO MEDIATICO

Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]


The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]


The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

LUGA TODO FUE UNA BROMA EXPERIMENTAL DE MULTIMEDIA SOLO PARA DEMOSTRARTE QUE NADIE PUEDE NI DEBE CONSIDERARSE SER DUEÑO DE LA PALABRA y NADIE TIENE EL DERECHO DE APLICARLE LA MORDAZA a ningun ciudadano libre DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE NORTE AMERICA por que podria ser considerado como un ataque directo a las libertades de expresion y podria considerarse como una discriminacion penada por ley....eSE FUE UNO DE LOS MOTIVOS POR EL CUAL LOS REPUBLICANOS NO GANARON LAS ELECCIONES por creerse los moralizadores y los que deben controlar los medios, sabes como perdieron? Por el uso de los medios Sociales, por alli se ganaron las elecciones, por ello nadie debe corregir ni sentirse el dueño de la palabra bajo ningun criterio molralizador o simplemente por creer tener el titulo de moderador de una pajina publica sin haber estudiado bien las leyes de comunicaciones de los EEUU, por si acaso recomiendo que revisen sus estandares de contenido si no fuera tu amigo ya estaria buscando abogados para someterlos a una caceria de brujas y penarlos por DIFAMACION, LIBEL y privar mis derechos universales de expresion. Ese es principalmente el problema de la ignorancia "profetica" de algunas personas que se sienten con todo el derecho de decirle a las personas que tienen que decir, como tienen que hablar, pensar, etc. Por eso es que muchos en Estados Unidos se sienten totalmente libres y admiran esta gran nacion, por que se respeta la libertad de expresion, lo que acaban de hacer tus moderadores es penado por la ley de EEUU.Tus moderadores se estan metiendo en camisa de once varas al lanzar agravios personales y o por limitar la expresion de cualquier individuo que quiera expresar una opinion publica por utilizar un lenguaje diferente o tener una posicion politica diferente o de punto de vista esto puede ser considerado en una corte y multados por el FCC (Federal Communication Commitee) como una opresion plena de las libertades de expresion por ello recomiendo mucho cuidado con los moderadores que utilices en tus pajinas "los derechos de libertad de expresion" son universales y estan regulados por el pais donde se desarrolla la comunicacion de lugar de origen que es eso el tema a tratar amigo no te preocupes todo fue un experimento y solo lo hice para darles una clase de "Communication Law" por que la vez pasada sin ser soez ni malcriado tus moderadores itu incluido me botaron e insultaron mi inteligencia en tu pajina, recuerda que tengo una Maestria en Communications, mi tesis fue en periodismo investigativo y otra en "Law and Ethics"....Para la experiencia de vida aconsejo a todos los agresores y moderadores que se lean el libro "Why viewers watch" y uno de Communications Law and Ethics" si es que no quieren quedar mal parados o en la cana....No seamos tan inocentes pues, o si no Luga mira a tu alrededor, ya hubiesen sacado a personajes mundialmnente distribuidos como los Simpsons, South Park, MTV, Howard Stern, Saturday Night Live, Letterman, Johnny Carson entre muchos del aire o sea mucho cuidado con eso. Ah me olividaba, por si acaso tu pajina esta llena de avatares(personas con fotos de otras personas que pretenden ser tus amigos y solo son espias) espias de gentes que solo pretenden otras agendas ocultas que son meramente malintensionadas cuidado amigo ya saltaron tres.
leete esto
The FCC's Indecency Witch Hunt; A Dangerous Threat to Free Speech
by Rob Kall

OpEdNews.Com

The Republican dominated, christian right controlled congress has massively increased the fines for indecent use of the airwaves. The FCC has begun a witch-hunt that is clearly driven by the Bush administration's obesiance to fundamentalist right wing Christians who insist upon forcing their morals down the rest of the nation's throat.

Clear channel has already been fined for hosting Howard Stern's show and Stern, the most popular DJ in the US, now believes he is on the verge of being thrown off the air altogether.

This is a symptom of the 2004 presidential elections. This assault on freedom of speech is another example of this failed president's pandering to his strongest constituency.

How can a show that is the most popular in the country be shut off because of a minority group that wants to control the way others think and act?

It's simple. We have a president who caves in, who sells out the nation's interests, the people's interests whenever he is pressured by groups that he is owing to. A leader of strong character would stand strong against such demands. But Bush embraces these opportunities, like a whore with her john. The result is horrific-- an FCC with the power to intimidate any media entity. These businesses; Clear Channel, Infinity Broadcasting, Viacom, are spineless corporate entities which care about making money, and nothing about free speech or human rights.

"The indecency feeding frenzy in Washington, D.C., is merely election-year posturing, a blatant appeal to 'family values' at the expense of freedom of expression," says Bill Lee, a professor in UGA's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication and an expert in communication law. 

The 20,000 member Public Relations Society of America wrote to Michael Powell, asking him to rescind its request for authority to increase tenfold the fines the commission could levy on broadcast entities the Commission deems to have violated nonspecific guidelines on obscenity and indecency, saying that "Increased FCC Fines without Clear Guidelines Endangers Free Expression."

Howard Stern says this is another assault in the culture war. A former Bush supporter, here's what he says now, according to a report in Salon, ""'I might be taken off all the stations very soon, and my last words to you are G.W.B.,' Stern told listeners... "'Get him out of office. I'm tellin' you, man, he's in dangerous territory [with] a religious agenda and you gotta vote him out -- anyone but Bush,' Stern railed."

Last year there was a huge outpouring of response to the FCC's decision to allow the shrinking of media diversity. Now, as the media is controlled by fewer and fewer organizations, we are seeing it intimidated and censored by an FCC controlled by a fundamentalist controlled administration.

According to FCC chair Michael Powell, inn December the FCC "more than two dozen cases in the final stage of investigation," which they anticipated acting on in the next few months.

Proposals are ready to go in Congress to drastically increase fines for "indecency." And there's a three strikes and you're out clause, so, if a company has three "indecencies" counted against it, its license to broadcast can be taken away. These kinds of threats will cast a pall on free speech that, added to the abuses of the patriot act, could take the US some serious steps further away from being the democracy most of the world and US citizens considered it to be.

This is a process of steady erosion. Each step, by itself, may seem annoying, or unpleasant, but tolerable. Combined together they add up to an assault on our freedoms that is both deliberate, treacherous and profoundly dangerous. It is time the tables be turned.