1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Bring back the "Fairness Doctrine"... for everybody

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, May 4, 2009.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I would support a "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it is applied to ALL media: TV, Newspapers, movies, etc., as well as talk radio.

    For every anti-Bush or pro-Obama screed Chris Matthews gives, there has to be a matching delivery from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

    For every appearance by George Stephanopolous on CNN, there has to be equal time for Glenn Beck, whom they must now re-hire and pay as much as they pay GS.

    For every "news article" that praises a liberal Obama plan in the New York Times, LA Time etc., there must be an equally long article, as prominently displayed, by Thomas Sowell or George Will etc.

    For every movie showing company executives as evil or heartless, there must be a movie produced of equal length showing a company (like Wal-Mart for example) moving into a neighborhood, providing new jobs to people who didn't have them, providing lower prices and greater selection, etc., and people's lives improving as a result (which is actually the way it usually works).

    For every rant by Rosie O'Donnell on The View, she must shut up and sit still without interrupting while Elizabeth Hasselbeck (or Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter) delivers an equally-lengthy speech.

    And, as the Doctrine demands, the Government must devote an office to examining all TV and radio reports, newspaper articles, magazines, movies, etc., to decide which are promoting liberal ideals or conservative ideals, and making decisions on who will be allowed to speak or write next, based on their political ideology.

    Etc. etc., you get the idea.

    I can hardly wait for the leftists to praise this plan, as much as they praise the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for radio only.

    -----------------------------------

    Actually, on second thought, I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.

    I've changed my mind. There is NO version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I can support.
     
  2. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If they do bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and it does apply to every media, I could almost be for that.
     
  3. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I could "almost" be for it too. Which is like being "almost" pregnant.

    Meaning, I am agin' it. For the reasons stated above.
     
  4. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,923
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    If "they" (who are they anyway?) really did bring back the fairness doctrine, then it would have to apply to everyone, at least in theory.

    Even if it did, I for one am not going to support an end run around the First Amendment. Freedom of speech means exactly that, whether your favorite nonsense is right wing, or left wing. Everyone has a right to spout the nonsense they like, and it's up to the rest of us to sort out the grains of truth from the hype and drivel.

    If one citizen is muzzled, then we're all muzzled. The idea of a government body deciding who is and isn't being "fair" sounds like something that might have happened in the old Soviet Union, but never in America.

    Who came up with the term "fairness doctrine" anyway, George Orwell?
     
  5. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    This is the problem with talk radio.

    The Conservative groups have all the money in this media area and they lock things up. Not only do they have their own funding sources they also have all the various religious groups that can't stand it when Progressive Talk Radio gets going strong in any particular area.

    This just recently happened in my town Columbus, Ohio. We had 1580 AM WVKO and it was doing great. Brought the ratings way up from the previous format and with the Obama win the sky was the limit.

    So what happend... a Catholic group came in and bought the station to put WVKO off the air. They know Ohio is important and Ohio went Blue this time so they used their deep pockets to try and stop the Progressive radio information in central Ohio.

    There's a perfectly good and truly fair way to have a fairness doctrine.

    Not make every station have equal time on every channel or make every area have an equal number of Left to Right channels.

    But simply make sure every major market has at least one single channel on the Left & one on the Right. If there's not one... open one.

    The Right can have 15 channels in my area I could care less good for them! I just need one channel.

    And this would go the same in the few places where it's all Liberal talk... the Right should have one station. It's a good thing for people to get both sides easily in their cars while they're driving around and make evaluations as to what political bend fits them best.

    Seems an easy fix to me. The Right still gets the massive coverage they have now... and the little guy gets a word in too for balance.
     
  6. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    "WVKO went off the air on May 5, 2006 due to the upcoming expiration of its transmitter land lease and major financial issues. The station moved to another transmitter site in 2007, at which point it returned to the air. [2]


    The reality is that a catholic group did come in and bought the failing station. Did the owners sell it at a loss or at a profit? Since you seem to think they were doing great it is a safe bet that they would have sold at a profit. Meaning that they would have even more money to go out and start up again and to do so better funded. But again reality is that they would have sold at a loss and probably did not have enough money to start up again. Though we know they wanted to because they are still playing reruns on their website.

    I bet any group could have come in to buy out that station - that is the American way. Why some other progressive group could have bought it. But progressive radio almost always fails because it does not lend itself well to soundbites and slogans but instead to in depth analysis which is why conservatism thrives on radio.


    How would that be fair if no one wanted to listen to, say, right wing channels? Those right wing channels would not be profitable. Would the government fund them? And what about the "green party"?
    You already have ABC, NBC, CNN...
     
  7. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Most cases of liberal radio have failed to turn a profit and that is why they are taken off the air. For your particular case, it seems odd that the radio station would be for sale if it was actually making a large profit, but I do not know the specifics.

    Who is going to pay for this? Also, do you account for newspaper slants in areas?

    Again, who pays for this idea?
     
  8. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,923
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Not only who pays, but who decides that the stations or papers are too slanted one way or the other? The government?:eek:
     
  9. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Nonsense.

    Liberal talk shows have been started, nationwide even, sometimes with quite a lot of money. In fact, some of them (see "Air America") have been kept afloat with hundreds of thousands of donor dollars, far beyond the time their rating fell so low they could no longer be measured.

    People across the country... ALL people... had just as much chance to listen to liberal talk radio as they did to conservative talk radio.

    But despite this long, consistent, well-advertised opportunity, practically nobody wanted to listen to liberal talk radio.

    And that's not the fault of conservative listeners, nor of conservative talk hosts.
     
  10. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I know exactly how things went down with WVKO. I'm actually a friend of one of the people that was at the station and I went to all of their events... even their anniversary party which was right before they went off the air.

    What happened is the PROGRESSIVE TALK group were leasing from the overall owner just like all the people before them except the PROGRESSIVE TALK group was actually getting some ratings and moving up.

    The Catholic group saw this and targeted the station to buy. They bought it and refused to renew the PROGRESSIVE TALK lease. They have no ratings now it's just a channel of recorded sermons... but they killed the Progressive Talk off which was all they cared about in the first place. That's what they do.


    I'm saying that if there isn't a viable station the government should open additional air space... a free channel until it becomes profitable. All that's needed is the air space. Any format can pay the bills if the channel itself is free.

    And like I said this should be done for both major Parties... Left & Right.


    That's all Right Wing propaganda. ABC & CNN are neutral they just tend to focus more on whichever Party is in power... in a TRUTH to POWER way.

    MSNBC for the most part is Left leaning and FOX is RIGHT.

    But like I said the radio thing could be taken care of and not one Right Wing channel would be taken off air.
     
  11. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    "Targeted"? What is your evidence? Maybe they just wanted to buy a radio station and since that one was not doing well it was cheap. They specifically state that they bought it: "in order to provide a clear, strong signal to nearly 2 million listeners across Central Ohio." and "The new 1580 AM signal substantially increases the coverage area now reaching the central Ohio area and beyond." But if you can provide any statements from St. Gabe saying that they wanted to drive off the progressive show let us know.

    But let us suppose that it was targeted: No one forced the station owner to sell, no one forced the show to pick that station or to not pick another station. No one is stopping them from going to another station. Just like pubs lost the election and have to take their lumps that show lost too and needs to take it's lumps.


    The government did provide a channel and the station put that show on the air, and they had a chance. Unless you were willing for all parties to get the same opportunity for a 'free' chance I see no way that it could be feasable. Would you be willing for the Jehova's Witnesses to get the free opportunity too? If FOX were not hugely profitable would you be willing for them to get a free ride on the gov so they might become profitable?

    Cough, splutter, choke. The media bias of MSM has been demonstrated so many times on these boards that no one even attempts to defend them anymore, until now. And that definitely includes ABC and CNN.
    Yep.

    But not one religious channel would be given the same opportunity. And when ten people are in a crowd and nine are given an opportunity that is the same as taking away and opportunity from the tenth.
     
  12. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I'm simply saying there are ways to allow an opposing voice in every area and not limit or reduce the dominate side. As far as this particular case they aren't going to say they wanted to squash Progressive Talk that's bad business and only hurries a fairness doctrine.

    But I've actually talked about it with my friend & others that worked at the station and they tell me you can trace similar patterns all over the country... and the purpose of the Catholic station is obviously not an attempt to make any money because it's like the bottom of the bottom.


    I'm not talking about every special interest group... I'm simply talking about our two major political Parties... If there was ever a viable 3rd Party sure I'd be fine with them having a spot as well. The main reason for this is because there is a lot of misinformation about the other sides agenda & intentions in an attempt to vilify the opposition. Both sides do this to some extent. Being able on the same easy format to listen and weigh out what seems best for you personally... seems good to me.

    I said MSNBC leans LEFT. Just like FOX leans RIGHT.

    In my opinion ABC & CNN are down the middle. I listen to MSNBC because it's entertaining and shows like Countdown & The Rachel Maddow Show really go after the policies & tactics of the Right and I like that... but I watch CNN when I want to see a high powered yet neutral viewpoint.


    Religious groups are not political parties... or at least their tax exempt status says they're not supposed to be. Some type of a fairness doctrine is about politics.
     
  13. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    I am glad that you clarified that we are only talking about major political parties here.

    The two major political parties are not lacking in power funds or voice. They both have plenty of opportunity to get their message across on TV, in radio, in newspapers, on the internet, and in person.

    There is zero need for any intervention whatsoever to give voice to either of the major parties.

    But if there were a need for fairness on radio where the slant is right then there would certainly be a need for fairness on TV where the overwhelming slant is left.

    I am sure that the people over at the progressive radio station are completely unbiased when they speak about the group that bought the station and put them out of business at that location (but did not stop them from going elsewhere).


    It is so nice to know that you would be willing to let the third party have a spot at the table. WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHO GETS A SPOT AT THE TABLE. That is what free markets and the first amendment are for. parties that can persuade anyone at all to donate money or time to them thrive and those that cannot die.
     
  14. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    And again even with your scenario, and even though I'd disagree with your premise, just like what I said about fairness in radio would be true already on TV... THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE ONE ON EITHER SIDE. FIXED NEWS... I mean FOX NEWS handles that all by itself. It's basically a political action committee for the Republicant Party.

    No I'd say they were pretty biased. But that doesn't change the pattern they have pointed to. And yes they are once again looking for a spot in our area.

    I'm simply saying any viable Party that had enough support to win a range of elections and govern the American people SHOULD get a chance to be heard on the public airwaves.
     
  15. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    If the party is viable and has enough support to win a range of elections then it can certainly take care of itself.
     
Loading...

Share This Page