The "Fairness Doctrine" Drumbeat Heating Up!

[Zebo]

Some liberals, or really communists is probably more apropos here, are pretty damn insecure. They own the WH, congress an still not satisfied.

It's un-American as torture or discrimination to muffle speech just cause you don't like it.

And Yes Bud ACLU would defend against this.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Some liberals, or really communists is probably more apropos here, are pretty damn insecure. They own the WH, congress an still not satisfied.

It's un-American as torture or discrimination to muffle speech just cause you don't like it.

And Yes Bud ACLU would defend against this.

I'll believe it when I see it--or in reality NOT see it.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Why is everyone talking about how this is going to affect talk radio? Last time a check a lot more people watch TV then listen to AM. I would hate to see shows like SNL tone down its political edge due to worries of balancing.

or west wing...

or boston legal...

The fairness doctrine doesn't apply to true fairness; otherwise the networks, newspapers, and rest of the mainstream media would be shitting their pants about the fairness doctrine

This is a prime example of liberal fascism: complete disregard to public opinion, true fairness, and their hate of the first amendment.

The democrat's view of tolerance is: we are completely tolerant of any thing you say as long as you agree with us 100% of the time, if not then shut-up or we will shut you up.

It wouldn't apply to a lot of things, but it would apply to broadcast media, which includes CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The Fairness Doctrine is obsolete, more fear mongering....

Never mind that with the whole Internet, a multitude of cable/satellite radio channels, and various forms of "narrowcasting" having virtually replaced broadcasting, such a doctrine is effectively obsolete. It might have made more sense back when your TV could only get three stations.

How does one define a viewpoint as being opposed to another viewpoint anyway? Must they be polar opposites? Should two sides of a story be presented even if there's really only one acceptable side?

Besides, I'm glad these entertainment, faux outrage talk programs exists. I can't think of a better way to ensure the continued stupidity and subsequent decreasing relevance of their blustering cause. Let's pretend we're going to shut down conservative talk radio (Air America will be granted a talk radio monopoly), would they stop if Republicans will join the fight against media consolidation. Maybe they would bust up Murdoch's empire to protect the base-driving lunatics.

I'd prefer a Truth Doctrine...Reporting lies and intentionally misleading your audience would be cause for revoking your broadcast license. Let an unbiased souce keep a scorecard. Rush can continue to be as biased as he wants, but unless he caveats his hyperbolic blustering as opinion rather than pretending that he's communicating actual facts.

 

[DealMonkey]

Somewhere, for some paranoid reason, a wingnut has his news filter set to alert him whenever the words, "fairness doctrine," is even mentioned. Yawn. Get back to us when there's some solid legislation being put before a vote and not just some whackjob in the House suggesting that maybe they'd support it. FUD FTL!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Somewhere, for some paranoid reason, a wingnut has his news filter set to alert him whenever the words, "fairness doctrine," is even mentioned. Yawn. Get back to us when there's some solid legislation being put before a vote and not just some whackjob in the House suggesting that maybe they'd support it. FUD FTL!

Sorry you feel that way about former President Bill Clinton.