Here it comes: The Fairness Doctrine's Return Merged With Fairness Doctrine

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Adam's Apple, Jan 16, 2007.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Brace yoruselves because its coming back. IF you thought the FCC was out of control before, wait until they get the Fairness Doctrine back into law.

    http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=333927



    So the last paragraph sums up the attitude of the law perfectly. If we don't like what is on we WILL change it or remove it despite what audiences like watching or listening to. Also extending this to "If we don't like what is said on a political show, we will change it or remove it."

    So basically good bye First ammendment, hello Soviet Union. Have to love that "Progressive" movement. What exactly are they progressing us towards?

    This is a 6-page article. Might want to print out to read.

    The Plan To Silence Conservatives
    By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media
    January 15, 2007

    Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more "progressive" voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives.

    for full article:
    http://www.aim.org/special_report_print/5160_0_8_0/
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    They cant do anything with it yet. The President will veto any bill.

    However, if they win in 08 and keep Congress, then the American people is screwed unless the Court strikes it down. But id rather never have the court address the issue. there is too much risk in that.
     
  3. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Kucinich......what does it say about this country that this weasal can somehow get enough supporters to continuosly run for the Presidency, kind of like Ralph "I Killed the Corvair for Ford" Nader.
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Hannity had Congressman Kuccinich on today. What an enlightening experience. I don't have the transcript yet but the Congressman said "We don't want to take you off the air, Sean. We want to make sure that there are opposing views to your view that can be accessed as well." Repeatedly Sean asked him about the NYT, LAT, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc and asked if they too would have to have an opposing view to their opinions. Kuccinich responded "those networks are fair and balanced and provide an opposing viewpoint already."

    So the point Sean tried to get through to him but he kept dodging the slimiest way he could was that he was making the congress a dictator in that they decide who stays on and who stays off based on their arbitrary view of what a "fair and balanced" opinion is. In his eyes, if it ain't liberal, it's not fair and balanced.

    The point i wanted Sean to drive home was who will be paying for these opposing points of view? We already saw that the American people do not want a liberal talk radio station by virtue of Air America going bankrupt. So according to the new installment of the Fairness doctrine, Air America will be funded by who? No ads want anything to do with them? Is Rush's network or Hannity's network supposed to pay to fund Air America too? Or is it that the American people will fund Air America in order to provide the "Fair and balanced" viewpoint that they will require by law. This is literally shredding the 1st ammendment in front of the American people's eyes and saying "your too stupid to know whats good for you. So we will tell you whats good for you."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    If he does it will be his first veto, no?

    The courts had the chance to rue on this before, didn't they? The Fairness doctrine was in effect for years before Reagan.
     
  6. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    insein posted:

    Well, isn't this just lovely?

    "We don't want to take you off the air", well, I don't know about you, but I'm absolutely aw struck.

    How much stupider can you get?

    The left never fails to dumb found me with their absolutely stupid comments.

    How this doesn't completely embarrass them is beyond me.
     
  7. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Pure loathing for personal responsibility. That coupled with lack of pride.
     
  8. Hamiltonian
    Offline

    Hamiltonian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PRC
    Ratings:
    +13
    I do not see what the big issue here is. These shows don't get taken off the air, I just think that these shows are not allowed to claim that they are News shows if they don't give equal air time to opponents. Rush, or Hannity, or O'Reilly (etc.) can just claim they are entertainment shows, like the Daily Show, instead of News shows. I think people will continue watching the same shows regardless of whether the FCC allows the shows to label themselves news.

    Don't get me wrong though. I'm no fan of this legislation. I don't think will have much of an impact, and the only impact it might have is to make our News shows look more like episodes of Crossfire.
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    No, he has vetoed bills before. But he would be stupid not to veto it... then again...

    As for the courts, the decision that allowed the fairness doctrine also said if there was a change of circumstances the question could be revisited and technology has come far enough to justify another look. But like i said, Lets not get to that point.
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Because it does not pertain to just 'news' but also 'opinion', which includes shows like Rush, Hannity, etc. On the other hand, 'entertainment' on the order of Law & Order and such, which while good programs, put forth the liberal ideology:

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008935.php

     

Share This Page