Fairness Docrine Coming Back?

[rayboyusmc]

There are currently 9 conservative talk shows for each liberal talk show on radio. This seems strange since there are more registered democrats than republicans.

Will the Marxist Obama led Democrats try and bring back the fairness doctrine?

Bill Press is talking this up big time on his morning radio show and Sean Hannity just about had a conniption fit blathering about this topic.

I say we put Randy Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh in a room and see who comes out alive. Does Rush come out with a smile on his face and an empty bottle of Viagra, or does Randy come out with his balls in bag? Either way, we then go back to the fairness doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3]

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[4] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[5]


[edit] Public opinion
In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [34]

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WillowTree]

I'm sure if you Nazis have your way the "fairness doctrine" will come back, you can't sell your shit by legitimate methods ie competition so you will dictate that it be swallowed..

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are currently 9 conservative talk shows for each liberal talk show on radio. This seems strange since there are more registered democrats than republicans.

Will the Marxist Obama led Democrats try and bring back the fairness doctrine?

Bill Press is talking this up big time on his morning radio show and Sean Hannity just about had a conniption fit blathering about this topic.

I say we put Randy Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh in a room and see who comes out alive. Does Rush come out with a smile on his face and an empty bottle of Viagra, or does Randy come out with his balls in bag? Either way, we then go back to the fairness doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3]

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[4] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[5]


[edit] Public opinion
In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [34]

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you follow politics, you have to consider whether the renewal of the "Fairness Doctrine," which I expect will be in its new incarnation as "Local Control," is one more aspect of hard-ball, or, to continue the sports analogy, dirty pool.

I'm guessing that they will also take control of next year's census, and use "estimation" technique to max out Dem districts and representatives.

Next, change tax law and immigration policy and you have the extinction of the Republican Party.

 

[del]

There are currently 9 conservative talk shows for each liberal talk show on radio. This seems strange since there are more registered democrats than republicans.

Will the Marxist Obama led Democrats try and bring back the fairness doctrine?

Bill Press is talking this up big time on his morning radio show and Sean Hannity just about had a conniption fit blathering about this topic.

I say we put Randy Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh in a room and see who comes out alive. Does Rush come out with a smile on his face and an empty bottle of Viagra, or does Randy come out with his balls in bag? Either way, we then go back to the fairness doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3]

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[4] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[5]


[edit] Public opinion
In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [34]

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

 

[dilloduck]

I think all Americans should have to wear the same kind of tennis shoes (and not those queer basketball shoes with no laces ).

 

[alan1]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

The alphabet soup of TV news

 

[PoliticalChic]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

The alphabet soup of TV news

And who sells on tv?
CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES NITE, FEB 10, 2009
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,494,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000
CNN KING 1,761,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000
CNN COOPER 1,286,000
CNN BLITZER 1,246,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000

 

[elvis]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

The alphabet soup of TV news

And who sells on tv?
CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES NITE, FEB 10, 2009
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,494,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000
CNN KING 1,761,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000
CNN COOPER 1,286,000
CNN BLITZER 1,246,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000

The more obnoxious, the more people will watch.

 

[twogreen2c]

The reason there are more conservative talk radio stations to liberal is obvious. It is what the consumer market wants. Is it no wonder the consumer supports conservative talk radio when they turn on their TV or read their city newspaper and it is dominated with the liberal view only? Air America, along with host Al Franken, was a failure. To force the Fairness Doctrine would result in less listeners to the conservative stations, which results in less advertising $$$ to these stations, which results in loss revenues for the radio station and ultimately lost jobs. But I guess lost jobs aren't too important to the Democrats and Obama when it comes to this matter. Their objective is to silence their opposition. That way they can continue with their agenda and lie to the American people without having Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Ingram, etc. exposing them. Obama is approaching one month in office and already lied to the American public on his "there is no pork in the stimulus package and there will be no lobbyists in the White House."

 

[rayboyusmc]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

Randy Rhodes, Thom Hartman, Bill Press.

Progressive can sell just as well as the right, so your argument is not really valid but is the one most commonly used by the right to avoid having both sides of the storty told.

Remember when Rush and rest said Air America wouldn't make it. I guess they were wrong.

This is just another fear of the right wing that if they have to compete on a level playing field, they won't be able to dominate the market. Enforcing this when it was first put in place didn't create communism or any of the other shit voiced so far.

Like I said, there is a bigger liberal audience than conservative one. What are you afraid of?

More Nazi shit Willow?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The alphabet soup of TV news

And who sells on tv?
CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES NITE, FEB 10, 2009
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,494,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000
CNN KING 1,761,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000
CNN COOPER 1,286,000
CNN BLITZER 1,246,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000

The more obnoxious, the more people will watch.

No, while the public may drive over the cliff now and then, they probably have a reason for long term behavior. More even-handed approach, and intellligent content, and people make it a habit to tune in.

Want both sides, watch Fox.
International flavor, CNN.

One sided, such that he never has an opposing view, its Olbermann.

 

[elvis]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

Randy Rhodes, Thom Hartman, Bill Press.

Progressive can sell just as well as the right, so your argument is not really valid but is the one most commonly used by the right to avoid having both sides of the storty told.

Remember when Rush and rest said Air America wouldn't make it. I guess they were wrong.

This is just another fear of the right wing that if they have to compete on a level playing field, they won't be able to dominate the market. Enforcing this when it was first put in place didn't create communism or any of the other shit voiced so far.

Like I said, there is a bigger liberal audience than conservative one. What are you afraid of?

the numbers don't lie. the fairness doctrine is a form of totalitarianism. I don't like Rush and Hannity, but the radio stations should be able to choose who they want on the air. This isn't the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

 

[Charles_Main]

If you follow politics, you have to consider whether the renewal of the "Fairness Doctrine," which I expect will be in its new incarnation as "Local Control," is one more aspect of hard-ball, or, to continue the sports analogy, dirty pool.

I'm guessing that they will also take control of next year's census, and use "estimation" technique to max out Dem districts and representatives.

You are guessing? Count on it. Why else change the way the Census reports? Localisms will indeed be used to silence right wing talk.

isn't change grand.

All the fairness doctrine, or any variation of it will do, is silence all political talk on Radio. Why? Because stations will have to choose to either keep shows that get ratings, and add some that do not, or just do sports instead. When ever the government is trying to in any way, control our speech it is bad in my book. Just more of the same from the supposedly wonderful democrats.

By the way to the guy who said it seems weird there are so many Conservative Talk shows compared to Liberal. First off it is not true, there are plenty and have been plenty of liberal talk shows. They simply do not get the ratings needed to stay on the air.

Why? even though there are more Democrats than Republicans you ask? Simple talk radio is where people turn for an alternative to the Main stream Media, which despite the claims of many, Leans mostly to the left, save for fox. If they wanted to her liberal ideas, they would pick up almost any US news Paper, watch any of the network news broadcasts, a hollywood film, or tune into CNN or MSNBC, or NPR, or I could go on. Point is Liberals have plenty of places to get their message out.

Conservatives only have a couple. Fox news, and talk radio

 

[del]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

Randy Rhodes, Thom Hartman, Bill Press.

Progressive can sell just as well as the right, so your argument is not really valid but is the one most commonly used by the right to avoid having both sides of the storty told.

Remember when Rush and rest said Air America wouldn't make it. I guess they were wrong.

This is just another fear of the right wing that if they have to compete on a level playing field, they won't be able to dominate the market. Enforcing this when it was first put in place didn't create communism or any of the other shit voiced so far.

Like I said, there is a bigger liberal audience than conservative one. What are you afraid of?

air america couldn't make it in that bastion of conservatism known as massachusetts.

i'm not afraid of anything. if the audience is so big, why aren't the evil corporations taking advantage of it?

hint: it doesn't exist.

 

[alan1]

No, while the public may drive over the cliff now and then, they probably have a reason for long term behavior. More even-handed approach, and intellligent content, and people make it a habit to tune in.

Want both sides, watch Fox.
International flavor, CNN.

One sided, such that he never has an opposing view, its Olbermann.

FOX News is a bunch of liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

Randy Rhodes, Thom Hartman, Bill Press.

Progressive can sell just as well as the right, so your argument is not really valid but is the one most commonly used by the right to avoid having both sides of the storty told.

Remember when Rush and rest said Air America wouldn't make it. I guess they were wrong.

This is just another fear of the right wing that if they have to compete on a level playing field, they won't be able to dominate the market. Enforcing this when it was first put in place didn't create communism or any of the other shit voiced so far.

Like I said, there is a bigger liberal audience than conservative one. What are you afraid of?

More Nazi shit Willow?

Surprise! Air American went bankrupt.

What world are you living in? In D.C. they just took off the Lib radio. Bill Press will be on a different station, on that is conservative.

In NYC market, one lib after another bit the dust. Cuomo, Hightower, Air America.

Don't tell me that you really don't get it: without NEOCOM gov't policy squashing right wing radio, libs will not survive.

BTW, Debbie Stabenow, Senator from Michigan, a proponent of Fairness D, has a husband who is a director of Air America. Get it?

 

[xsited1]

The liberal elites in the US believe that since Obama and the Democrats won the election back in November, America must be liberal. WRONG! They only won because conservative-leaning America had nobody to vote for. As they say, pride comes before a great fall. If the Democrats continue to push their liberal BS down America's throat, Americans will respond. I just hope they don't push too hard. If that happens, Obama and Lincoln may be remembered as the two Civil War Presidents.

 

[WillowTree]

we've already got a fairness doctrine. it's called "advertising buys".

limbaugh's a tool, but he sells. find a leftie that can sell advertising and stop whining.

Randy Rhodes, Thom Hartman, Bill Press.

Progressive can sell just as well as the right, so your argument is not really valid but is the one most commonly used by the right to avoid having both sides of the storty told.

Remember when Rush and rest said Air America wouldn't make it. I guess they were wrong.

This is just another fear of the right wing that if they have to compete on a level playing field, they won't be able to dominate the market. Enforcing this when it was first put in place didn't create communism or any of the other shit voiced so far.

Like I said, there is a bigger liberal audience than conservative one. What are you afraid of?

More Nazi shit Willow?

well Nazi,, if there are more of you and your message is more popular then hows come nobody wants to listen to your nazi shit doyathink?

 

[WillowTree]

And who sells on tv?
CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES NITE, FEB 10, 2009
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,494,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000
CNN KING 1,761,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000
CNN COOPER 1,286,000
CNN BLITZER 1,246,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000

The more obnoxious, the more people will watch.

No, while the public may drive over the cliff now and then, they probably have a reason for long term behavior. More even-handed approach, and intellligent content, and people make it a habit to tune in.

Want both sides, watch Fox.
International flavor, CNN.

One sided, such that he never has an opposing view, its Olbermann.

The Nazis have been programmed over at KOS to never ever listen to the other side. now they whine cause they cannot get their side heard.. since they are in the "majority" why is that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anybody remember when Air America was indicted for stealing money from a Boys and Girls club?

After over a year of damning revelations regarding the fishy 2004 transfer of $875,000 in taxpayer funds from the former Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club to the liberal Air America Radio Network, the New York City Department of Investigation has announced the first two indictments in this case.

The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney: Gloria Wise Executives Indicted, Air America Radio