Slashdot Mirror
30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging
Cutie Pi writes "In a recent Rasmussen poll looking at the public's attitudes toward a possible revival of the fairness doctrine by the Democrats, a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates (originally intended for public airwaves) to cover the Internet as well. It is encouraging that a minority of people feel that way, but Democrats say 'hands-off the Internet ... by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.'"
If /. were fair and balanced would each posting as an AC be treated as +1 subscriber?????
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Aren't complete blithering idiots.
Hey, I'm just being "balanced"... if we're talking about 30% we have to talk about the other 70% too in order to be fair, right?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
31? Last time I did any type of computer help it was more like 95%
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
That same 30% then asked...
wtf is a blog?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
That's right - they were compassionate.
hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea,
That's one of the best fucking ideas I've ever heard. However, from your criticism, I'm guessing the word "not" wasn't supposed to be in there.
So you're saying there are 2 ways of thinking - either think that there are only 2 of everything, or think that there are more than 2 sides to everything?
(Well, am I right or am I wrong?)
So Catholic priests are Democrats who say they are Republicans?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Well, the President appoints those judges. And I think that Congress can impeach Supreme Court judges (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), although it's rarely if ever done.
I think it is basically a good idea; the only problem being how to define and enforce fairness. Several countries in Europe have something similar, which is why European news seem so much more varied than American news. The broadcasting services in Europe seem to have originated mostly as public services, and building in some sort of 'fairness-doctrine' only seemed natural, since the state is supposed to be the servant of the whole of the population, not just the party that happens to be in power.
The sad fact is that American news services are anything but balanced, which at the end of the day harms democracy. How can the electorate make an informed choice about anything when the news are all distorted? People aren't stupid - they can see that each broadcaster has its own agenda, so they give up trying to find out what really goes on and only tune in on the channels that don't challenge their chosen belief; and in effect politics, political news and political ideologies have become irrelevant backgroud noise, replaced by indifferent gossip about the politicians - like "Obama sounds like Osama, hur hur".
How can we repair America? That what I'd like to know. I know from experience that Americans are good and decent people; so why is the American nation such a vile bastard in many ways? Whatever else the explanation is, it is clear that the government of America is not a true representation of its people.
Fairness doctrine. Air America failed and you want to take it out on the other side because they succeed.