Recent orders
The Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:
The concept of fairness is very difficult to define in a society where people have different ideas on what fairness means. For some people, fairness means having their way or nothing else, and for others, fairness means meeting others with opposing views in the middle. Because of such differences in ideas, it is challenging to develop one standard of fairness to apply to an entire country such as the United States. During these times of heightened anxiety due to politics, the pandemic, unemployment, and other problems, people rely on the media to give them pertinent information that affects their lives. Although some media outlets try to be balanced and nonpartisan in their reporting, the reality is that the majority have some kind of partisan leaning. This partial leaning situation leads audiences to tune in to the outlets that are more likely to support their views and criticize those that lean towards the other side. Under the fairness doctrine, such a situation would be easily rectified as the doctrine required licensed media outlets to give balanced reporting on important matters. Although the Federal Communications Commission’s fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987, it served as a regulatory tool to ensure fair and balanced reporting, reducing extremism and giving all parties a chance to respond to public views and attacks.
Whenever a person turns on the television, especially in these current times, they are bombarded by all types of information based on which channel they watch. A right-leaning channel will say that the coronavirus pandemic has been blown out of proportion, the economy is doing great, and the President is on track to win the election. On the other hand, a left-leaning channel will focus on flare-ups of Covid-19 cases in many parts of the country, the millions of people who have lost their jobs, and the polls predicting Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election. With all this confusing information, who is telling the truth? Is there a way for Americans to find out both sides of the debate presented without bias? This is where the fairness doctrine would step in and save the American people.
The Fairness Doctrine came into being in 1947 as a policy under the Federal Communications Commission. Under the doctrine, licensed radio and television outlets were required to ensure balanced and fair coverage of issues affecting their community. One way of doing this was to devote equal airtime to differing or opposing points of view (Ruane 2009). An example of how to apply the fairness doctrine in the current time would be for a television broadcaster to invite two experts to discuss the state of the economy. The two would debate the issue based on their opinions and the facts available, and the viewers would make their judgments based on the balanced reports from both sides. However, the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987 as the Reagan government pursued deregulation, and people could access more information, unlike earlier before.
The first reason why the fairness doctrine was useful is that it reduced extremism in the information presented by TV and radio broadcasters. Watching some of the news outlets today, one is shocked by the sheer extremism and disregard for facts that some media outlets show. Such kinds of extremism in news coverage has actually led to acts of violence and death. An excellent example of this is the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 200,000 Americans so far. As the pandemic spread worldwide in the early months of 2020, scientists warned of the significant effects and proposed some suggestions on how to handle it. However, some media outlets labeled the virus a hoax and painted the scientists as alarmists wanting to destroy the American way of life. Such coverage led to riots resisting lockdown and safety measures instituted at various levels, effectively killing tens of thousands of people. Had the fairness doctrine been in place, such outlets would have been forced to cover the other side of the argument showing the virus as a real threat. In such a case, viewers would have been more likely to pay some heed to the virus as a threat, averting violence, and death.
The fairness doctrine allows people to receive balanced and fair reports on controversial issues, which helps them become more informed and make informed decisions. One of the reasons why the FCC instituted the fairness doctrine is to make information more accessible, especially those who had limited sources of information (Lefevre-Gonzalez 2013). All that has changed today with people accessing information through multiple sources such as television, radio, social media, streaming services, blogs, online journals, among many others. Despite the excess information available, the issue of fairness is mostly absent. Although there are some reliable outlets, many news sources still present unverified, dangerous information that cannot be regulated. The fairness doctrine would require traditional news broadcasters such as news channels to cover both sides of controversial issues. People still rely on outlets to make a judgment. So the argument that information being more accessible makes the fairness doctrine irrelevant is false. Many people watch their favorite news channel as their primary source of information, and balanced coverage would make for a better-informed population, basing their judgment on the merits of an issue.
One of the basic tenets of the fairness doctrine was giving opposing viewpoints equal airtime, which allowed parties to respond to attacks, false information, and any other ideas attributed to them (Honig 2019). Such a doctrine would be extremely valuable in current times. Today, it is very common to turn on a news program and find a political candidate attacking their opponents. Most of these candidates make outrageous claims against others, yet the accused party is rarely given a chance to respond to the accusations. For example, a right-leaning channel would host a candidate accusing their liberal counterpart of planning to defund the police once they are elected. Conservative voters would obviously be appalled at this and promise to never vote for the other candidate. Consider a situation where the news program would give both candidates twenty minutes to discuss their reform ideas regarding the police, and each candidate could respond to accusations against them. The fairness doctrine would be an effective way to stop misinformation and mudslinging campaigns (Honig 2019) because voters would hear first-hand from both parties.
In summary, the fairness doctrine was an excellent policy created to ensure fairness and balance in reporting information by broadcasters. When the principle was in place, there were few problems because of the relatively few numbers of licensed broadcasters; therefore, enforcement was relatively easy. However, as time has gone by, the First Amendment has taken center stage, and there have been many fights for free speech. The fairness doctrine was seen as one way of stifling free speech; therefore, it was abolished. Looking back, the fairness doctrine would be useful in current times to eliminate extremism, make viewers more informed, and eliminate misinformation and mudslinging campaigns. However, implementing the fairness doctrine would be much more difficult, given the fact that technology has made it very easy for any individual to put out unverified, potentially dangerous information. In an ideal world, the fairness doctrine would work, but in such polarized times, the doctrine would stand no chance of success despite its many advantages.
References
Honig, J. A. S. (2019). Public Policies on Broadcast and the Fairness Doctrine: History, Effects, and Implications for the Future. Public Policy and Administration Review, 7(1), 1-6.
Lefevre-Gonzalez, C. (2013). Restoring historical understandings of the ‘public interest’standard of American broadcasting: an exploration of the Fairness Doctrine. International Journal of Communication, 7, 21.
Ruane, K. A. (2009). Fairness doctrine: History and constitutional issues.”. J. Curr. Issues Crime Law Law Enforc, 2(1), 75-89.
Principles Of Safety And Health That Apply To Personal Conduct
Principles Of Safety And Health That Apply To Personal Conduct
Explain the principles of safety and health that apply to personal conduct at home and off the job as well as on the job.Safety and health is an issue that has affected personnel’s at home and during their work period. According Rush, “Promoting principles of workplace safety and health helps establish sound business principles while keeping workers safe and productive” (Rush). There is occupational safety and health that is concerned with protection of the safety, health and welfare of people engaged in work or employments. The principles of safety and health act as a guild line to reduce the injuries occurred during our daily lives. Occupational and industrial accidents are mainly caused be preventable factors that ca n be eliminated through implementing methods and measures that are already known. This can be demonstrated by continuously reducing accident rates .The application of preventive strategies therefore offers significant human and economic benefits (O.Ali, 2008).
Principles of safety and health
Prevention
This is a safety regulation that will help avoid injuries and accidents in the workplace or at home. This can be implemented by putting up cautious signs to deter people from misusing the facilities such as checking machinery to prevent electrocution due to short circuits. In case of repairs safety equipment’s can be used to reduce the chance of getting injured. At home we can prevent many accidents by being cautious and weary of the items that might be harmful .Example is the knife rack, which should be placed away from the reach of children also the repair equipment’s such as the nail gun, saw and hammer should have a tool shed to prevent unnecessary injuries.
Capacity building through Training
This is a factor that is related to prevention as training is a method of prevention. This is by enabling employees be more vigilant of happenings in the organization, e.g. when one notices that there might be a roof leak it is advisable to contact concerned party or if possible repair it. In the work place the management can offer training on being healthy through sanitation safety and health training programs by encouraging regular hand washing before meals, proper use of dust bin by preventing litter and regular general cleanliness. At home the use of sanitizers and proper use of repair equipment’s can prevent many accidents and health related issues. Proper hygiene prevents germs from meals and will keep ones family healthy.
We can Train: manager’s personnel officers and supervisors; Peer educators and work representatives in the organization; Children and adults in the community; Safety health officers
Buy In
The best policy is becoming a role model to your employees or children this will encourage less safety violations. In a work place top management is mostly viewed by subordinates and every action undertake is closely eyed by them. Note, if a Parent takes food from the market and eats it without washing, the children will play the part by also neglecting the hygiene and eating the fruits without washing. Office management can encourage people who show excellent work ethics and who show their worth by maintaining hygiene and constantly encouraging healthy and safety ways by rewarding .Parents can also reward their children for remembering to always wash their hands before and after meals.
Record keeping for performance measures
Maintaining a proper book of accounts that have happened either by organization or government bodies helps identify the areas that need to be repaired .In a household a disease might have affected the young one in the house, this record will help in the future as if such symptoms appear they can be easy noted and proper medication is given before it becomes too serious. This enables prevention of future happening or events that might be caused. It is appropriate to note down such incidences to maintain a risk free work environment.
Emergency plans
This are usually noted in all organization which have safety regulations concerning accidents and mostly fire .The warnings or rather guidelines show what to do in the event of a fire. Such warning and precaution signs help an organization prepare psychologically, employees or family on future events that may occur. At home people do not have proper safety rule and regulations in the event of a fire, but if there were there would be minimal accidents and injuries. If this could be treated as health of children is whereby the parent has a first aid kit that enables family members to be treated in case of illnesses or injuries. Emergency plans help in reducing accidents such as, fire, health risks (insurance policies), accidents and all sorts of health risks.
Wellness
Maintaining regular checkups for workers will boost the production in the organization as a whole. The less people are sick the more work will be done efficiently and effectively. In any case the workers might also infect others which might lead to an epidemic causing the health risk to be more rampant. The wellness of the employees’ health or family mainly depends on the care given by the parents or management. At home regular monthly check ups would prevent unnecessary incidences of health risk.
In conclusion, management total commitment to make safety and health is an important aspect to successful health and safety program in the workplace and off the job. It is only when the management makes effort and plays a positive role that the workers and family will view such principles as worthwhile and sustainable exercise.
References:
O.Ali, B. (2008). Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. Genever.
Rush, M. (n.d.). Principles of work place health and safety. E How Money, 1.
The Fair
The Fair Use is one of the key copyright exceptions that refers to the utilization of copyrighted properties without necessarily obtaining permission. I trust that the Fair Use exception is truly fair as long as the use of the copyrighted material can be considered fair. First, it is important to clarify what exactly the Fair Use exception entails. Generally, the Fair Use exception refers to the utilization or use of copyrighted materials without obtaining permission from the owner (commonly referred to as copyright owner). The fair use provision serves as a tool for people to utilize copyrighted materials without obtaining consent from copyright owners. Most times, people under the age of 18 years old may fall under the protection of this law. If a person does not obtain consent from an author for using his/her work, it is considered as a fair use and therefore legal.
However, there are four rules of fair use that must be adhered to. The first factor is the Purpose and Character of the Use, the second rule is The Nature of the Copyrighted Work, the third factor being The Amount or Substantiality of the Portion Used, and the last factor being The Effect of the Use on the Potential Market for or Value of the Work (Loren, 2015). Some things that the Fair Use law probably did not consider like making a full copy of a book and selling it, or copying someone’s ideas and selling them as yours, but if the purpose is to profit from it, then it is probably not fair use.
Some people might think that in order to be protected under the fair use provision, one must photocopy an entire book and sell it because they can’t afford to buy the original copy. The problem with this is that most books have copyright. So even if you photocopy a 3rd edition of Twilight, it would still be violating copyright laws because you already have the first edition of Twilight. Therefore, photocopying an entire book without the author’s consent would not be a fair use.
As long as the purpose of the use of copyrighted material is not to profit, it is considered to be legal under the law of fair use, even though there are strict regulations that should be adhered to. In addition to this, there are different forms of fair use. The most common form is using small excerpts from copyrighted material for news reporting or criticism if the copyright owner agreed to it. Another form is using clips from a film clip in documentaries or other uses that require more than an excerpt which would allow for more freedom in how you can utilize these clips and still abide by these guidelines (Loren, 2015).
Reference
Loren, L. P. (2015). Fair use: an affirmative defense. Wash. L. Rev., 90, 685.