The pro side seems to argue that one-sided
promotion of a particular interest is _against_ the public interest.,
and that lack of discussion is much, much better than relentless
propaganda. If a "news" outlet wants to stay away from careful analysis
of important issues, that's their right. If they want to ignore one side
of the discussion and suppress facts they don't like, that's wrong.
Recently, Fox news claimed that Hostess _had_to_
close their factory merely _because_ the unions refused to take a pay
cut. They neglected to report that the unions had already accepted
substantial cuts in pay and benefits, that the Hostess CEO had been
given a substantial _raise_, and that the money from concessions had
been paid out as dividends and profits to investors instead of being
reinvested in the company.
(http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/fox-blames-union-hostess-bankruptcy-ignore)
Fox reported the story as unions killing a healthy business, without
even mentioning the possibility of mismanagement and greed, or reporting
any of the facts that contradicted their version of events.
The fairness doctrine would have given the unions the right to have a short rebuttal aired on Fox News. As it is, there is no such right, and the pro side would argue that it is in the public interest that viewers of specific news outlets get both sides of whatever stories they are told.
