GOP preps for talk radio confrontation

[actsnoblemartin]

let me be clear, im against the fairness doctrine, because I do not honestly believe you cant legislate fairness over any medium.

Im saying, if american citizens didnt like concervative radio, or wanted more liberal radio, they have avenues of trying to get more liberal hosts, that do not involve the government, even pod casting too .

there isn;t any more bandwidth to give out martin, airwaves are limited....thus 3 major networks on Broadcast TV verses 100 cable networks.

this law is only involved in Broadcast radio and broadcast tv, (over the PUBLIC'S Airwaves), where there are very few licences for the government to issue.

 

[red states rule]

there isn;t any more bandwidth to give out martin, airwaves are limited....thus 3 major networks on Broadcast TV verses 100 cable networks.

this law is only involved in Broadcast radio and broadcast tv, (over the PUBLIC'S Airwaves), where there are very few licences for the government to issue.

CAre, libs have the free market to get their views out

Either the folks do not want to hear the views, or the left has gotten their views out - and the listeners have rejected them

 

[red states rule]

there isn;t any more bandwidth to give out martin, airwaves are limited....thus 3 major networks on Broadcast TV verses 100 cable networks.

this law is only involved in Broadcast radio and broadcast tv, (over the PUBLIC'S Airwaves), where there are very few licences for the government to issue.

Talk radio is the balance Care


Fairness Doctrine Loses Big in the House, Media Mum
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 30, 2007 - 13:30.
If the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to reinstate the controversial Fairness Doctrine which has not been in force since the ’80s, do you think it would have been headline news?

Well, on Thursday, an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill prohibiting funds to be used to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters passed in an extraordinary show of bipartisanship 309 to 115.

In fact, 113 Democrats joined 196 Republicans in favor of this funding ban. Yet, virtually no media reported the news.

Before we get to that, the following statement was made by one of the amendment’s sponsors, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) on Thursday:

"Today the House of Representatives affirmed that freedom will continue to reign on the airwaves of America. Thanks to the support of 308 of my colleagues, Congress has ensured that the Fairness Doctrine will remain in the grave for now. This was a resounding victory for free speech.

"However, the fight for freedom on the American airwaves is not over. With many still hoping to resurrect this archaic doctrine of unfairness, we must continue to stay on the offense. Tonight I will introduce the ‘Broadcaster Freedom Act’ to ensure that the victory we experienced on the House floor today extends to future generations.

"I thank all my colleagues, especially the Republican leadership in the House for delivering this resounding victory for the freedom of speech."

Despite this historic vote for freedom of speech, besides Fox News, not one television news division felt this event was worthy of dissemination. Not one.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13853

 

[red states rule]

you are STILL not getting it.... the Fairness Doctrine applied to ONLY the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.... cable can do what they want, newspapers can do what they want, satelight can do what they want....they all can be as unbiased and skewed as they wish.

So can radio, they can be a skewed any way they wish. What was required from the Fairness Doctrine, is that on issues of Public Interest, they need to give a blip about the opposing side of the issue so that the entire public is well informed, these stations were GIVEN THEIR BANDWIDTH to broadcast BY the Public.

Bandwidth is LIMITED, not every American can get this BANDWIDTH to broadcast their views on critical public issues because WE the public, gave all the strong bandwidth to just a couple of people.... which can be dangerous to our freedom, if these stations do not cover important public issues in full....and imo, that is ONLY FAIR to the public that owns these LIMITED BANDWIDTH airwaves.

The FCC decision was partisan. The Supreme court ruled the fairness doctrine WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, just that it was not mandated by congress, so Congress then passed the fairness doctrine by majority vote to make it a Law instead of a rule, and it was VETOED by Reagan, then congress voted on it again and passed it with a majority vote under Bush 1, and it was vetoed again.....with not enough votes to override the veto on both.


All I can say is "may the gods of fairness" be upon those of you that don't agree with it and let Liberals own all of Radio with no voice from the opposition EVER being heard by the public....some day! Pay backs are hell they say.....

This is why I am for it, "The Golden Rule", do unto others as you would want them to do unto you....that is what fairness is all about in my book!

Care

How anyone could oppose something called a "Fairness Doctrine" is beyond me, but the anti-Fairness conservatives hate it almost as much as they hate blacks and gays. That's because deep down they know they can't compete on a Free & Open Market when it's content is controlled by a federal bureaucracy operated by liberals. But the tide is turning. Despite being constantly bombarded by right-wing lies, the imbecilic idgets overwhelmingly returned Congress to its rightful owners last year, and the White House is Hillary's for the taking. We approach the dawn of a A New Age of Fairness, my friends, where poisonous conservative opinions in the media are tempered with an equal portion of tasty liberal goodness.

For every minute Chickenhawk Hannity spends blubbering about how we should all "support the Troops", he will be required by the Rules of Fairness to spend an equal amount of time calling them babykillers and rapists. Every hour fatty pillpopper Rush devotes to attacking Hillary, he will be bound by law to spend another hour sweetly praising her, proudly endorsing her, and making nice comments about her hair.

The Fairness Doctrine would not be restricted to the realm of radio and TV media, either. For instance, high school commencement addresses that extolt the benefits of working hard and becoming financially independent must also encourage students to do lots of drugs, have lots of meaningless sex, and get Liberal Arts degrees. It's only fair.

To some, a Fairness Doctrine may seem like a vast government entity regulating the content of political speech is an infringement on our most basic civil liberties, but "Freedom of Speech" can only exist as long as the selfish pinhead masses are forced to listen to what progressives believe they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/