Do you agree with the posters' main points? Why or why not? Have they overlooked some important aspects of how the Fairness Doctrine could be used?

Apply the posters' response to the original discussion questions to a hypothetical situation of providing equal time for opposing viewpoints. Are there potential problems that have not been addressed? Would their suggestions create more potential for misinformation to be spread? Why or why not?

I do believe that the Fairness Doctrine should be re-established. In this day and age, the news outlets tend to report the news on the side of what the masses either believe or support. And generally speaking, this means that whatever the masses believe or support is being portrayed by the news outlets as being the truth, while the other side of the issue is then deemed as false or bad. This is especially true when it comes to politics. For instance, you have some media outlets that report Trump as being evil, corrupt, and racist; while other media outlets report how he made so many positive changes and impacts for our country.

I also believe that the Fairness Doctrine should apply to other media sources. If you impose the doctrine on the news alone, then people will flood these other media outlets with news that is not fair and end up resulting in what we currently see.

Now I do believe that there are certain media outlets that should be exempt from this doctrine. Outlets such as Twitter or Facebook are good examples of what should be exempt and this is because platforms such as these are places to post your personal views on topics that do not require the opportunity to have a fair say as opinions are just that opinions.Whether someone has the ability to post the opposite viewpoint to mine is irrelevant because my Twitter or Facebook is not being used to influence the masses to believe my opinion, it is just an outlet where I can say what is on my mind, how I feel, or report what I have done in my own time.