Newsweek shows Obama as Hindu god.

[edthecynic]

The fairness doctrine would not alleviate media bias.

From Fox or MSNBC. You should look up what it actually does

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

the point you dipshits miss is there is already contrasting points in the media

Then why are you crybabies always whining about a media bias against CON$ervoFascism?

 

[DiveCon]

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

the point you dipshits miss is there is already contrasting points in the media

Then why are you crybabies always whining about a media bias against CON$ervoFascism?

no, pointing out that there IS media bias is not whining, what YOU do is whining
your whole sig is one big whine

 

[DiveCon]

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

Wrong-o.

False logic.

The fairness doctrine would do absolutely nothing to the cherry-picking and slanting of facts that goes on in news-shows. It would just effect opinion shows by forcing an alternate view.

Opinion shows and news shows are not the same thing sparky. News would still be biased. Fox and MSNBC would still have their smarmy news that skews one way or the other. OReilly and Maddow would have some competition inside their respective networks, but Shep and his counterpart over at MSNBC wouldn't.

edthemoron doesnt get it, and never will
his massive stupidity wont allow it

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine require them all to give you CON$ equal time?
Why yes, yes it would.
And aren't CON$ against the fairness Doctrine?
Why yes, yes they are.
Then wouldn't that mean CON$ are full of shit when they whine like little children about media bias?
Why yes, yes it would.

The fairness doctrine would not alleviate media bias.

From Fox or MSNBC. You should look up what it actually does

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

Wrong-o.

False logic.

The fairness doctrine would do absolutely nothing to the cherry-picking and slanting of facts that goes on in news-shows. It would just effect opinion shows by forcing an alternate view.

Opinion shows and news shows are not the same thing sparky. News would still be biased. Fox and MSNBC would still have their smarmy news that skews one way or the other. OReilly and Maddow would have some competition inside their respective networks, but Shep and his counterpart over at MSNBC wouldn't.

If cherry-picking and "SLANTING" of facts goes on in news shows then the Fairness Doctrine would require other opposing "SLANTS." Nowhere does the Fairness Doctrine make a distinction between news and opinion, and slanting the news would change it from news to opinion anyway!

In reality, CON$ want no other facts but their own cherry-picked and slanted "facts." The "liberal" media is not Liberal at all or the CON$ would insist on equal time and demand the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[xotoxi]

Newsweek shows Obama as Hindu god.

Does this mean that he's not a muslin?

 

[RadiomanATL]

If cherry-picking and "SLANTING" of facts goes on in news shows then the Fairness Doctrine would require other opposing "SLANTS."

No, it wouldn't. It's unprovable, in court, that they did it on purpose to advance an agenda.

Take Fox's "Obama worships Sitting Bull" story.

100% accurate, no opinion. Pure news story. Under the fairness doctrine, no opposing viewpoint would be required.

HOWEVER, this ignores the fact that the emphasis placed on a minor fact totally changes the skew of the story.

 

[DiveCon]

Newsweek shows Obama as Hindu god.

Does this mean that he's not a muslin?

i dont think QW was ever in that camp in the first place

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine require them all to give you CON$ equal time?
Why yes, yes it would.
And aren't CON$ against the fairness Doctrine?
Why yes, yes they are.
Then wouldn't that mean CON$ are full of shit when they whine like little children about media bias?
Why yes, yes it would.

AHHHH yes, once again the sniveling little coward DumbCon snipes in hiding without comment from his spider hole.

thanks for proving me right
i KNEW you would WHINE about it

and dipshit, the reason conservatives are against the "fairness doctrine" is we believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH
and no one WHINES about the bias, we just point it out when YOU dipshits whine about Conservative media

the point you dipshits miss is there is already contrasting points in the media

Then why are you crybabies always whining about a media bias against CON$ervoFascism?

no, pointing out that there IS media bias is not whining, what YOU do is whining
your whole sig is one big whine

But when I pointed out that YOU are a sniveling little coward snipping away while in hiding, you called "pointing out" your cowardice "whining." Now in typical CON$ervative fashion, you are on the other side of "pointing out," and when you do the "pointing out" it's suddenly not whining!

 

[Si modo]

I have no idea what Edthemoron is going on about, but Newsweek was stupid with that. India is not a small market.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I have no idea what Edthemoron is going on about

95% of the time it's about Rush Limbaugh.

5% of the time it's about Fox or right wing radio.

 

[DiveCon]

AHHHH yes, once again the sniveling little coward DumbCon snipes in hiding without comment from his spider hole.

thanks for proving me right
i KNEW you would WHINE about it

and dipshit, the reason conservatives are against the "fairness doctrine" is we believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH
and no one WHINES about the bias, we just point it out when YOU dipshits whine about Conservative media

Then why are you crybabies always whining about a media bias against CON$ervoFascism?

no, pointing out that there IS media bias is not whining, what YOU do is whining
your whole sig is one big whine

But when I pointed out that YOU are a sniveling little coward snipping away while in hiding, you called "pointing out" your cowardice "whining." Now in typical CON$ervative fashion, you are on the other side of "pointing out," and when you do the "pointing out" it's suddenly not whining!

exceptyou were WHINING about me giving you a neg rep, moron

but do continue to WHINE

 

[edthecynic]

If cherry-picking and "SLANTING" of facts goes on in news shows then the Fairness Doctrine would require other opposing "SLANTS."

No, it wouldn't. It's unprovable, in court, that they did it on purpose to advance an agenda.

Take Fox's "Obama worships Sitting Bull" story.

100% accurate, no opinion. Pure news story. Under the fairness doctrine, no opposing viewpoint would be required.

HOWEVER, this ignores the fact that the emphasis placed on a minor fact totally changes the skew of the story.

Bullshit! "Worship" is an opinion. It would only be accurate is Obama attended the "Sitting Bull Church of Worship." Since there is no such church of worship, it is not accurate, factual or even remotely news and the Fairness Doctrine would require an opposing opinion, which is why CON$ are against the Fairness Doctrine.

CON$ want to call their opinions "facts" and they want to attack other media as "Liberal" when they do not "report" CON$ervative opinions as "facts."

 

[RadiomanATL]

If cherry-picking and "SLANTING" of facts goes on in news shows then the Fairness Doctrine would require other opposing "SLANTS."

No, it wouldn't. It's unprovable, in court, that they did it on purpose to advance an agenda.

Take Fox's "Obama worships Sitting Bull" story.

100% accurate, no opinion. Pure news story. Under the fairness doctrine, no opposing viewpoint would be required.

HOWEVER, this ignores the fact that the emphasis placed on a minor fact totally changes the skew of the story.

Bullshit! "Worship" is an opinion. It would only be accurate is Obama attended the "Sitting Bull Church of Worship." Since there is no such church of worship, it is not accurate, factual or even remotely news and the Fairness Doctrine would require an opposing opinion, which is why CON$ are against the Fairness Doctrine.

CON$ want to call their opinions "facts" and they want to attack other media as "Liberal" when they do not "report" CON$ervative opinions as "facts."

Moron, I was paraphrasing the title of the article.

The point still stands 100%.

 

[Si modo]

I have no idea what Edthemoron is going on about

95% of the time it's about Rush Limbaugh.

5% of the time it's about Fox or right wing radio.

That pretty much sums up why his posts are so scrollable.

 

[DiveCon]

If cherry-picking and "SLANTING" of facts goes on in news shows then the Fairness Doctrine would require other opposing "SLANTS."

No, it wouldn't. It's unprovable, in court, that they did it on purpose to advance an agenda.

Take Fox's "Obama worships Sitting Bull" story.

100% accurate, no opinion. Pure news story. Under the fairness doctrine, no opposing viewpoint would be required.

HOWEVER, this ignores the fact that the emphasis placed on a minor fact totally changes the skew of the story.

Bullshit! "Worship" is an opinion. It would only be accurate is Obama attended the "Sitting Bull Church of Worship." Since there is no such church of worship, it is not accurate, factual or even remotely news and the Fairness Doctrine would require an opposing opinion, which is why CON$ are against the Fairness Doctrine.

CON$ want to call their opinions "facts" and they want to attack other media as "Liberal" when they do not "report" CON$ervative opinions as "facts."

wrong again
Conservatives(not your childish CON$) see facts as facts and opinion as OPINION
thats why you dipshits cant understand FNC
you confuse OPINION, with NEWS

 

[DiveCon]

I have no idea what Edthemoron is going on about

95% of the time it's about Rush Limbaugh.

5% of the time it's about Fox or right wing radio.

That pretty much sums up why his posts are so scrollable.

and why they get neg reps

also because he whines like a stuck pig
LOL

 

[edthecynic]

thanks for proving me right
i KNEW you would WHINE about it

and dipshit, the reason conservatives are against the "fairness doctrine" is we believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH
and no one WHINES about the bias, we just point it out when YOU dipshits whine about Conservative media

no, pointing out that there IS media bias is not whining, what YOU do is whining
your whole sig is one big whine

But when I pointed out that YOU are a sniveling little coward snipping away while in hiding, you called "pointing out" your cowardice "whining." Now in typical CON$ervative fashion, you are on the other side of "pointing out," and when you do the "pointing out" it's suddenly not whining!

exceptyou were WHINING about me giving you a neg rep, moron

but do continue to WHINE

No, I was pointing out you lacked the guts to attack my post in public because when you did in the past I made a fool out of you every time, so now you are reduced to your spiteful tantrums in hiding.

As I have said many times, a neg rep from you is your spiteful admission that you can't rebut me. Rep means EVERYTHING to you and nothing to me, except to score how many times I have OWNED you! at you!

 

[Si modo]

But when I pointed out that YOU are a sniveling little coward snipping away while in hiding, you called "pointing out" your cowardice "whining." Now in typical CON$ervative fashion, you are on the other side of "pointing out," and when you do the "pointing out" it's suddenly not whining!

exceptyou were WHINING about me giving you a neg rep, moron

but do continue to WHINE

No, I was pointing out you lacked the guts to attack my post in public ....

Like he said, whining about a neg rep.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I have no idea what Edthemoron is going on about

95% of the time it's about Rush Limbaugh.

5% of the time it's about Fox or right wing radio.

That pretty much sums up why his posts are so scrollable.

Yeah.

Hey, I heard eddie was the Costa-Rican boy that Rush was caught diddling. True story

 

[Si modo]

95% of the time it's about Rush Limbaugh.

5% of the time it's about Fox or right wing radio.

That pretty much sums up why his posts are so scrollable.

and why they get neg reps

also because he whines like a stuck pig
LOL

Yeah, his whines don't stop, do they?

I can't stand whiners. So, I usually neg them.