The "Fairness Doctrine" is OK - if applied to ALL media

[Little-Acorn]

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., ther 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.

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.

Never mind.

 

[HankHill]

It is a ridiculous concept to have a "Fairness Doctrine" in a free market society.

What sells is what is going to get the most time.

Currently the market is flooded with liberal pansies on T.V. (with the exception of Fixed News, which is about 50% liberal now), newspapers, and magazines. Talk radio has the conservative side buckled down. If you think about it, talk radio is the "Fairness Doctrine" in action against all the liberal TV, newspapers and magazines.

Just look at which side is actually promoting this, and ask, WHY? And who will benefit from having a "Fairness Doctrine" and how?

I bet if you follow the money, you'll find all the answers you need...

 

[invest07]

to Little acorn

Little, little, little

Dont' you know that Chris Mathews is a professional journalist and is ALWAYS unbiased and objective in his reporting. Even though he has worked in the past for the Dem/Lib establishment, he certainly doesn't today. He never interprets events with and liberal slant. He is his own man.

Yeah...right!!!

The problem is that the Lib media thinks they are objective. That don't even realize they are Lib. They think they straddle the fence when anyone with half a functioning brain can see the truth.

The fairness doctrine is censorship, pure and simple. Censorship is censorship whether wrapped in the semantics of "Fairness" or "Political Correctness" or "Equal Opportunity".

I invite any of you who love liberty and freedom of speech to say "Hell No" to the fairness doctrine and to any and all aspects of PC.

 

[Pandora]

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., ther 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.

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.

Never mind.

It's wrong no matter who you target. I could not agree with it even if they made the whole world do it.

 

[Andy]

Exactly Pandora.

Of course that's not what is going to happen anyway. What's going to happen is, the new media that's all bias, is going to get a pass because they are not openly stating their bias.

Only the openly stated bias people, like Hannity and Rush, will be forced to have equal time. The mass media that is as far left as Castro, claims to be neutral, and thus exempt.

 

[Pandora]

Exactly Pandora.

Of course that's not what is going to happen anyway. What's going to happen is, the new media that's all bias, is going to get a pass because they are not openly stating their bias.

Only the openly stated bias people, like Hannity and Rush, will be forced to have equal time. The mass media that is as far left as Castro, claims to be neutral, and thus exempt.

and the radio stations eat it? they will be forced to put on programs that people do not want to listen to and no one wants to advertise on

but at least we can make fun of them and the conservative voice will find a new way to send out its message

 

[Depeche Toad]

If someone listens to me and not to you, why is this not inherently not "fair" to you?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is again just retarded as I don't know a single Liberal or Moderate supporting this idea....but you guys act like its some huge thing that everyone is pushing for,

Rush is Idiot, Bill O ditto....and retards want to listen to these windbags and hyporcrits ...Well so be it. I will just have to keep trying not to roll my eyes when they talk...and refrain from saying what I really thinking about them and there ideas......then again sometimes I just say it, and don't care.

 

[Depeche Toad]

This is again just retarded as I don't know a single Liberal or Moderate supporting this idea....but you guys act like its some huge thing that everyone is pushing for,

Rush is Idiot, Bill O ditto....and retards want to listen to these windbags and hyporcrits ...Well so be it. I will just have to keep trying not to roll my eyes when they talk...and refrain from saying what I really thinking about them and there ideas......then again sometimes I just say it, and don't care.

They all do support it, but they won't call it the "Fairness Doctrine" and will back door something else having to do with "local content."

 

[Andy]

and the radio stations eat it? they will be forced to put on programs that people do not want to listen to and no one wants to advertise on

but at least we can make fun of them and the conservative voice will find a new way to send out its message

Not likely. For a radio station to put on a program no one wants to listen to, could be a business breaker. Obama knows that. The result will be that most radio stations will be forced to not have the liberal or the conservative show.

In effect, it's a way of passing the "hush Rush" law, under the guise of "fairness".

Not that Rush wouldn't survive. In the largest markets, undoubtedly the ad revenue from Rush will make it worth airing a dead weight liberal program. But that's only in the largest markets where the income can more than out weight the loss. In smaller markets, where station budgets are thin, they'll have to dump Rush.

Of course the nice thing is, as more and more people are able to get online radio, and of course, purchase Rush and other conservative show, they will never stamp out the conservative voice.

I was considering buying a subscription to Rush myself.

Anytime consumers have to pay to hear a voice, they always choose conservative voices.

 

[Pandora]

Not likely. For a radio station to put on a program no one wants to listen to, could be a business breaker. Obama knows that. The result will be that most radio stations will be forced to not have the liberal or the conservative show.

In effect, it's a way of passing the "hush Rush" law, under the guise of "fairness".

Not that Rush wouldn't survive. In the largest markets, undoubtedly the ad revenue from Rush will make it worth airing a dead weight liberal program. But that's only in the largest markets where the income can more than out weight the loss. In smaller markets, where station budgets are thin, they'll have to dump Rush.

Of course the nice thing is, as more and more people are able to get online radio, and of course, purchase Rush and other conservative show, they will never stamp out the conservative voice.

I was considering buying a subscription to Rush myself.

Anytime consumers have to pay to hear a voice, they always choose conservative voices.

you are right about that last point. I can get all the crap they vomit out on CNN and pmsNBC for free in podcast, but I have to pay for the conservative ones. Even FOX news, I have to pay extra to get it on dish network, I get the crappy stuff free with my normal minimum package but have to upgrade to get FOX.

I never thought about they would just stop talk radio all together...... ugh that bothers me.

Obama is going to tax the internet to a point that not everyone can afford to use it, that will make listening on the net too expensive for some, but Im willing to do the pay radio, what ever its called to get conservative talk radio if it comes down to that.

and I agree, they can try all they want and they will never shut up conservative voices

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

This is again just retarded as I don't know a single Liberal or Moderate supporting this idea....but you guys act like its some huge thing that everyone is pushing for,

Rush is Idiot, Bill O ditto....and retards want to listen to these windbags and hyporcrits ...Well so be it. I will just have to keep trying not to roll my eyes when they talk...and refrain from saying what I really thinking about them and there ideas......then again sometimes I just say it, and don't care.

However the fact is that the arguement does not concern if you agree with their commentary about political B.S. ... It actually lies if you support my "right" to listen to them if I like them!!! Regardless of what they may be spilling...

I happen to like listening to Bill Oreilly and Glenn beck in the mornings when I can as well as Savage at night... While I know (( Expecailly savage hehe )) that all of their programs can sometimes be given with the subject "out of context". .. shouldn't that judgement call belong to "ME" considering the first amendment as well as the tenth claim I reserve those freedoms?!?!?!

I am really curious on this one Pocket.. would you protect my rights if the judgement on wether this bill would be passed or not came to only you?!?!

I would hope if this does run through congress thou .. that whatever your answer is for the above.. you would followup and and let your local senater/congressman know.

 

[Andy]

you are right about that last point. I can get all the crap they vomit out on CNN and pmsNBC for free in podcast, but I have to pay for the conservative ones. Even FOX news, I have to pay extra to get it on dish network, I get the crappy stuff free with my normal minimum package but have to upgrade to get FOX.

Not to mention the government funded leftwing crap like PBS, C-SPAM, and of course our favorite... NPR.

I never thought about they would just stop talk radio all together...... ugh that bothers me.

Not stop it, just make it "neutral" or "fair"... which means stopping our side, and no one listens to the other, so I suppose that is stopping it...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

However the fact is that the arguement does not concern if you agree with their commentary about political B.S. ... It actually lies if you support my "right" to listen to them if I like them? Regardless of what they may be spilling...

I happen to like listening to Bill Oreilly and Glenn beck in the mornings when I can as well as Savage at night... While I know (( Expecailly savage hehe )) all of their programs can sometimes be given with the subject "out of context" .. shouldn't that judgement call belong to "ME" considering the first amendment as well as the tenth claim I reserve those freedoms?!?!?!

I am really curious on this one Pocket.. would you protect my rights if the judgement on wether this bill would be passed or not came to only you?!?!

I would hope if this does run through congress thou .. that whatever your answer is for the above.. you would followup and and let your local senater/congressman know.

I have already made it cleal..

1. no one I know, supports this bill
2. I have seen nothing that shows its even something that has any chance of passing at all.
3. I don't support taking away people right to yell out news, even if they don't have a clue what they are talking about...fox news.....

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

I have already made it cleal..

1. no one I know, supports this bill
2. I have seen nothing that shows its even something that has any chance of passing at all.
3. I don't support taking away people right to yell out news, even if they don't have a clue what they are talking about...fox news.....

Good to hear!!!
So .. then if we all seem to have the same judgement call on this bill... does anyone have any differing opinions in this matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Reinstatement_considered
BTW Pocket ... thou your social group might not be talking about it... the leaders in power on the dem side has certainly been talking about it.