Fairness Doctrine (Merged)

[CO Bob]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the airwaves are owned by the citizens and they are an asset of the people.

So let me get this right.....public tax dollars spent on the airwaves should reflect neutrality because not everyone believes in the same thing. Yet the use of these same tax dollars in embryonic stem cell research should happen when only a portion of the public believe in spending those tax dollars thusly?

Hmm..... more liberal hypocrisy?

 

[CO Bob]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was enacted at a time when there were three t.v. networks, and only a handful of national radio programs. It made sure that stations offered opposing viewpoints to political speech, and still does today, even though it is not in force right now. The Democrats have a response to the State of the Union, etc.

With the large media that there is today, the public can choose to listen to what interests the most, via the multitude of choices. If you don't like to listen to conservative radio, you can switch over to "progressive" radio. It's available in most large markets, and it has it's audience, despite the failure of Air America. The consumer should decide for themselves, as it should be in any free-market system.

The democrats view the F.D. as a means to shut up conservative speech, and don't think otherwise. The very people that tell you that everyone should be heard are trying to silence a segment of the populace.

And when I hear people refer to conservative radio as "hate" speech, it just tells me that they have never taken a moment to listen, really listen. To put aside every thing they have been indoctrinated to, and give it a chance. Many of the people engaged in conservative radio shows (not the big show headliners, either) are intelligent people that simply make sure the conservative viewpoint is heard.

 

[CO Bob]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

the right is unwilling to see that just because the news isnt good for them it doesnt mean that its wrong

wills is a baboon in a suit with coke bottle glasses

what a twit

The right gets all of the news it does not like from the main stream media. As does the left. The consumers who listen to conservative radio do so because they beleive in conservative ideals.

As usual, you are so eloquent with your thoughts that you bring the debate down to your level through a snide, personal attack on a journalist with well known integrity. Again, once backed into a corner, you come out swinging with the normal batch of leftie screeching. You won't be happy until you silence anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

 

[Andreus]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

The right gets all of the news it does not like from the main stream media. As does the left. The consumers who listen to conservative radio do so because they beleive in conservative ideals.

As usual, you are so eloquent with your thoughts that you bring the debate down to your level through a snide, personal attack on a journalist with well known integrity. Again, once backed into a corner, you come out swinging with the normal batch of leftie screeching. You won't be happy until you silence anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

im glad you think so much of my debate skills

I am free to express any opinion i choose to so long as it isnt a personal attack on a member here

of course if you want to try to get Wills or Bush to join then go right ahead....

they arent fond of gays though and would rather be caught giving rush limbaughs opiate addicted ass an enema than come here to take up for you

im sure that makes you proud

as for being backed into a corner.... baby it hasnt come close

good joke though

 

[letme]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Two, why do you object to more opportunities for opposing views? What do you want,, do you want to live in a LEFT wing ghetto, surrounded by people who think just like you, people who only listen to people just like them? Why are you so afraid of balance?

Alf,note the change I made in your quote. Could this not apply to you ?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Alf,note the change I made in your quote. Could this not apply to you ?

I honestly don't see that anyone who's in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is advocating that.

I remember that "news" was much more reliable, and less prone to accusations of "partisanship" when the Fairness Doctrine was being utilized by the FCC.

It's a stretch to assume that to once again adopt it as policy would suddenly turn our country into the opposite of what it is.

The idea is to restore the debate and the dialogue to the center of where we are now, in regard to our Public Airwaves.

From where I'm sitting the debate and dialogue in this country is being carried out by the extremes on both sides of any given issue.

 

[jtilden21]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

I am going to have to go out on a limb here -- and I will probably regret it.

I started this thread with an appeal for ur opinions about this; because I was really not sure how to take this re-awakening of this now-defunct legislation.

I have to agree with centex, in that, to re-adopt this policy would not reverse the course of what our country stands for (never end a sentence with a preposition). But, to do so, things must change.

That said, things have changed.

Years ago, the companies that paid for the advertisements on the nightly news did not concern themselves with the content of the news. They were paying $ to get their ads on the nightly news.

Back to centex, they were balanced then, but now...

Today, if a news program airs a story that is deemed unsuitable by the advertisers, regardless of the validity of the story, the advertising $ go away.

This is a kow-tow to the $.

Even talk-radio entertains the same. Listen to the advertisers for Rush and Hannity. They cater to the upper-crust audience. Let Rush or Sean slip at tongue, and we would see the advertisers bolt.

It has come down to the mighty $.

Should we really allow the $ of advertisers to dictate what we see on the news or hear on the radio or read in the newspaper?

If so, we have sold out to the mighty $. And, I know the ppl here. That is not the case.

We do not sell out.

Just my two cents.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

I am going to have to go out on a limb here -- and I will probably regret it.

I started this thread with an appeal for ur opinions about this; because I was really not sure how to take this re-awakening of this now-defunct legislation.

I have to agree with centex, in that, to re-adopt this policy would not reverse the course of what our country stands for (never end a sentence with a preposition).

That said, things have changed.

Years ago, the companies that paid for the advertisements on the nightly news did not concern themselves with the content of the news. They were paying $ to get their ads on the nightly news.

Back to centex, it may have been balanced then, but.............

Today, if a news program airs a story that is deemed unsuitable by the advertisers, regardless of the validity of the story, the advertising $ go away.

This is a kow-tow to the $.

Even talk-radio entertains the same. Listen to the advertisers for Rush and Hannity. They cater to the upper-crust audience. Let Rush or Sean slip at tongue, and we would see the advertisers bolt.

It has comes down to the mighty $.

Should we really allow the $ of advertisers to dictate what we see on the news or hear on the radio or read in the newspaper?

If so, we have sold out to the mighty $. And, I know the ppl here. That is not the case.

We do not sell out.

Just my two cents.

Advertisers will pay top $$$ for the demographic that they most want to cater to, and IMO has nothing necessarily to do with content.

If anything, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine IMO, would create new markets, and would allow our Public Airwaves to compete with the internet, and Cable News because it will restore a credible balance to once respectable network news.

That's my take!

If the Cable News Channels, and the Talk Shows want to compete "in the market of ideas" then they'll follow suit, and the adverstising dollars with them.

 

[jtilden21]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Advertisers will pay top $$$ for the demographic that they most want to cater to, and IMO has nothing necessarily to do with content.

If anything, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine IMO, would create new markets, and would allow our Public Airwaves to compete with the internet, and Cable News because it will restore a credible balance to once respectable network news.

That's my take!

If the Cable News Channels, and the Talk Shows want to compete "in the market of ideas" then they'll follow suit, and the adverstising dollars with them.

Agreed. My point was that, if we allow advertising $ to dictate, that is who will speak.

As to your point, what happened to the Walter Cronkites, et al, whom we just trusted? We didn't question the source or the content. That was unbiased news.

My point was, if we continue to allow advertising $ to dictate the news, on any level (local, cable, etc), then we will hear what the $ are buying.

I support more unbiased news. If we need to re-enact the FD to so that, so be it.

But, my point -- as a news agency -- public or private -- why have to have a doctrine to do that? So you can say -- sry advertisers, I have to?

I hear you and understand. But, how do we stop the $ influence?

 

[jtilden21]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Truth invites inspection, falsity and fraud dread it. So, what's wrong with this picture? We have Dems inviting review, we have Republicans baying at the moon.

Now, I would have thought the reinstatement of the FD would be cheered by the conservatives -- after all, they carp and whine about how "LIEbrul" the media is, they say that things are going better in Iraq than the "LIEbrul" media tells us. Well, here's their chance to support accountability in the media, and what do they do? They run from it like a national draft had just been announced. Could it be they don't want accountability? Could it be they like the way things are in America? And if we as a nation, we as gay men, cannot agree that accountability is a good thing, then what the fuck will we agree on?

I think that his point was that things were less complicated then. Back b4 the news had to answer to advertisers and had to have ratings. Back then, it was just the news

 

[jtilden21]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Used to -- the three news channels would compete for ratings on the nightly news between the three. Nowdays, they compete with a zillion cable channels, Tivo recordings, DVDs, Movies-on-Demand.

We have a dozen news channels to watch.

His point is -- level the field so there is no competition.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Agreed. My point was that, if we allow advertising $ to dictate, that is who will speak.

As to your point, what happened to the Walter Cronkites, et al, whom we just trusted? We didn't question the source or the content. That was unbiased news.

My point was, if we continue to allow advertising $ to dictate the news, on any level (local, cable, etc), then we will hear what the $ are buying.

I support more unbiased news. If we need to re-enact the FD to so that, so be it.

But, my point -- as a news agency -- public or private -- why have to have a doctrine to do that? So you can say -- sry advertisers, I have to?

I hear you and understand. But, how do we stop the $ influence?

Well in my view you're already buying into the "conservative's" argument that "news" is a comodity.

I'll quote again the last paragraph of George Will's Op-Ed piece that you provided to start this thread:

"I believe we need to re-regulate the media," says Howard Dean. Such illiberals argue that the paucity of liberal successes in today's radio competition—and the success of Fox News—somehow represent "market failure." That is the regularly recurring, all-purpose rationale for government intervention in markets. Market failure is defined as consumers' not buying what liberals are selling.

The conservative are approaching this debate the way that conservatives approach every issue that they don't like, they're creating false arguments.

Hypotheticals, and scary voo-doo shit that just isn't a reality out here in the real world.

Market failure is defined as consumers' not buying what liberals are selling.[/

They're already framing the debate about the Fairness Doctrine, not as more "government intrusion" as one would expect conservatives to do, but as somehow interfering in the "free market economy" of our country.



Which has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, and I've yet to read anywhere where "the market" ever did.

Fifth Avenue will and advertisers, and Corporations, those who "think" that they'll have a stake in this game will do everything in their power to squash the Fairness Doctrine once and for all IMO.

Partially because they've been in the habit for nearly two decades now telling Americans what to buy, what to wear, how to look, and most recently how to think, and subsequently how to vote.

They don't want the Fairness Doctrine to exists at all. It will cut into their "market share," because they've already created the markets to sale their ideas.

Just follow the paper *ahem* money trail.

IMO, the American Public has everything to gain, but those opposed have everything to lose. It's a no brainer.

</IMG>

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Used to -- the three news channels would compete for ratings on the nightly news between the three. Nowdays, they compete with a zillion cable channels, Tivo recordings, DVDs, Movies-on-Demand.

We have a dozen news channels to watch.

His point is -- level the field so there is no competition.

My point is, if a sense of credibility is restored to the American Airwaves, and people know that "network news" is required by the FCC to be balanced, then the only market that they'll be competing with be those of questionable, or dubious content.

That sounds like a "competitive edge" to me!

 

[jtilden21]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Well in my view you're already buying into the "conservative's" argument that "news" is a comodity.

I'll quote again the last paragraph of George Will's Op-Ed piece that you provided to start this thread:



The conservative are approaching this debate the way that conservatives approach every issue that they don't like, they're creating false arguments.

Hypotheticals, and scary voo-doo shit that just isn't a reality out here in the real world.



They're already framing the debate about the Fairness Doctrine, not as more "government intrusion" as one would expect conservatives to do, but as somehow interfering in the "free market economy" of our country.



Which has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, and I've yet to read anywhere where "the market" ever did.

Fifth Avenue will and advertisers, and Corporations, those who "think" that they'll have a stake in this game will do everything in their power to squash the Fairness Doctrine once and for all IMO.

Partially because they've been in the habit for nearly two decades now telling Americans what to buy, what to wear, how to look, and most recently how to think, and subsequently how to vote.

They don't want the Fairness Doctrine to exists at all. It will cut into their "market share," because they've already created the markets to sale their ideas.

Just follow the paper *ahem* money trail.

IMO, the American Public has everything to gain, but those opposed have everything to lose. It's a no brainer.

</IMG>

Okay, I don't respect news as a commodity. It is a right of the ppl.

Never said that I thought that. I just said that is what is, unfortunately, happening.

Do I agree? No. See above.

I despise that fact.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Okay, I don't respect news as a commodity. It is a right of the ppl.

Never said that I thought that. I just said that is what is, unfortunately, happening.

Do I agree? No. See above.

I despise that fact.

What I'm saying is, is that if you're willing to fight for the FD, then you'll need to know politically how they're going to hit the proponents for it.

The debate has already started.

 

[jtilden21]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

What I'm saying is, is that if you're willing to fight for the FD, then you'll need to know politically how they're going to hit the proponents for it.

The debate has already started.

Dude, we are so on the same page. I just felt like debating.

 

[scrapple]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

I think everyone misses the point. The left is absolutely free to put their people and their shows on the air. The problem is that whenever they do that , they almost always fail. Air America has been on life-support since its inception. Liberals are absolutely free to put on whatever they want...the problem is nobody wants to hear them.

 

[CO Bob]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Huh? Stem cells? Honey, the topic is the Fairness Doctrine. If you cannot manage to intellectually 'spress yo self and maneuver within the topic, and if you are unable to contribute to the discussion, maybe you should give it a pass, you know?

Nice try, Alice.

This off-topic comment was directed at the hypocrisy the left demonstrates over & over again. Sorry, just wanted to make a quick point. I made my on-topic points after. Most of which you have not addressed. But I will consider my self properly dressed down. I know you like to stress good form. I've seen you use it so well in other forums.

I stand by my original statement. Those who would advocate open discussion want to use the FD to silence opposing views. Your assertions regarding the market are wrong. If people want to listen to NPR, and the "progressive (that's a laugh!)" talk that exists, they can. The balance will be dictated by the consumer.

What you really cannot stomach here, is that "progressive" radio (including Air America) is generally a bust. Boring, pedantic, repetitive, and virtually a rant & rave fest. No one tunes in. It grates at you does'nt it? I've listened, and it's pathetic.

 

[CO Bob]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

why do you object to more opportunities for opposing views? What do you want,, do you want to live in a right wing ghetto, surrounded by people who think just like you, people who only listen to people just like them? Why are you so afraid of balance?

And if media were liberal, which it is not, then why would liberals advocate, you know, for the Fairness Doctrine?

Why do you answer so many questions with another question?

 

[letme]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

You ARE kidding, right? While I appreciate your tussling with my question, I'd be more honored if you, you know, answered it? I mean, I'm in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, I want media to be honest, accurate and fair at all times. It is largely the extremist, Rush-loving right (including gay pole smokers, sadly) who don't want accountability. And you know, that is a theme that courses through the political right: they'd rather not be held to account what what they say and what they do.

Now. Your turn, letme. Answer le quezzie.

1. I want media to be honest, accurate and fair at all times. There is absolutely no doubt about this.

2. It is largely the extremist, Rush-loving right (including gay pole smokers, sadly) who don't want accountability. This is totally wrong.
a. Not all of the Right is Rush loving.
b.Read #1 above.
c.And you know, that is a theme that courses through the political right: You still have that broad brush in your hand,don'tya ?
d. they'd rather not be held to account what what they say and what they do.
Redundant

3. The "Hate America" talk radio or the Evil Talk or what ever you call them on a givin day,is not news. "Pill-O Limpboar" " Shannon Hanny-wipe" "Bill OMGriely" are just entertainers. Same as Bill Oberwomen, Karun Yesterdaily, etc.
They have their views and thoughts. as do you have yours. Thing is,,they get PAID to spew what they have to say,and you & I don't. And ya know in this free market society that we live in,they are getting rich. Why ? 'cause people like/need entertained,and they do it well.4.

Ah, no, frightened Left wing extremists are afraid they might actually get confronted with the facts and with truth for a change, and that's a difficult thing for them. Two, why do you object to more opportunities for opposing views? What do you want,, do you want to live in a Left wing ghetto, surrounded by people who think just like you, people who only listen to people just like You? Why are you so afraid of balance?

And this is the question,why are you so afraid of talk right radio ? You may say yor not,but your rants speak or sound fearful/defensive .imho.
Do I support the F.D. ? Hell no ! We Do Not need even more government regs. I do not want them telling me what I MUST listen to on my radio,on the channel of my choose.
5. Balance.... re-read #3 It is Market driven. There is left talk on the air. Just really hard to find it. I drive alot. I have AM.FM & Sirius.I do listen to left & right.(btw left talk is 146) I like balance,would like more.My rating of GWB is at the lowest I ever thought it would be. Left talk told me things I have not thought of. POINT IS I choose to go there and listen,W/O a damned mandate !

ok I have rambled on................ did I answer you ?