Rep. Clyburn: Bring back Fairness Doctrine

[WillowTree]

The Administration has NEVER mentioned any desire to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Your link is about a Congressman who wants it, not the administration. Why would Congress bypass Congress?

Anyway, this will never happen - but that won't stop talk radio from stirring up the fear.

Hasn't the EPA sidestepped Congress??? hmmmm?

I think you're missing my point.

I don't deny that there have been sidesteps.

I think that you're making a Beck-like conspiracy theory jump by taking a quote from a Congressman to mean that the Obama Administration was going to sidestep Congress, even though NO ONE in the Administration OR the FCC have called for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

what does the shooting have to do with any kind of speech?

you honestly think they are going to get rid of their deepest held belief that talk radio is somehow responsible for the shootings?

Short of a few unhinged left-wing whackaloons, some of whom troll these boards, nobody really believes it. It's just another excuse to rant about hate speech, call Sarah Palin a few choice names and subsequently lobby for censorship, of the other guy.

 

[Rozman]

Typical Liberal bullshit...They can't win on a level playing field ex: Air America so they cry like a baby that the world is unfair so we need it to step in and punish conservative radio by getting the successful shows taken off the air...and this is what it's all about.Why can't the Libs go out and start their own shows to counter the right....Oh yeh we go back to Air America again which was an absolute failure.

They can't make it on their own so they need Big Government with the big hammer to stand behind them when they go after the right.What a friggin joke.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Typical Liberal bullshit...They can't win on a level playing field ex: Air America so they cry like a baby that the world is unfair so we need it to step in and punish conservative radio by getting the successful shows taken off the air...and this is what it's all about.Why can't the Libs go out and start their own shows to counter the right....Oh yeh we go back to Air America again which was an absolute failure.

They can't make it on their own so they need Big Government with the big hammer to stand behind them when they go after the right.What a friggin joke.

They have plenty of local lib shows like Sharpton, Baldwin, etc. Problem is, they haven't the national audience for all that wacky left-wing nonsense. Seriously, these out-to-lunch leftist make up what, 5% - 10% of the population?

 

[Trajan]

The Administration has NEVER mentioned any desire to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Your link is about a Congressman who wants it, not the administration. Why would Congress bypass Congress?

Anyway, this will never happen - but that won't stop talk radio from stirring up the fear.

Hasn't the EPA sidestepped Congress??? hmmmm?

I think you're missing my point.

I don't deny that there have been sidesteps.

I think that you're making a Beck-like conspiracy theory jump by taking a quote from a Congressman to mean that the Obama Administration was going to sidestep Congress, even though NO ONE in the Administration OR the FCC have called for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

well, that congressman ( in the op) has a daughter who is on the fcc....in fact she chairs it.

Now, I won't jump to conclusions BUT it would be interesting to see if she has an opinion on this. I might be surprised, how knows. *shrugs*

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hasn't the EPA sidestepped Congress??? hmmmm?

I think you're missing my point.

I don't deny that there have been sidesteps.

I think that you're making a Beck-like conspiracy theory jump by taking a quote from a Congressman to mean that the Obama Administration was going to sidestep Congress, even though NO ONE in the Administration OR the FCC have called for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

well, that congressman ( in the op) has a daughter who is on the fcc....in fact she chairs it.

Now, I won't jump to conclusions BUT it would be interesting to see if she has an opinion on this. I might be surprised, how knows. *shrugs*

The "Fairness Doctrine" will NEVER be instituted, at least not in the sense that the right is so afraid of.

Don't worry, Rush isn't going anywhere.




I'm so sick of the persecution complex the far right has. (Not necessarily referring to you here.)

 

[Trajan]

I think you're missing my point.

I don't deny that there have been sidesteps.

I think that you're making a Beck-like conspiracy theory jump by taking a quote from a Congressman to mean that the Obama Administration was going to sidestep Congress, even though NO ONE in the Administration OR the FCC have called for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

well, that congressman ( in the op) has a daughter who is on the fcc....in fact she chairs it.

Now, I won't jump to conclusions BUT it would be interesting to see if she has an opinion on this. I might be surprised, how knows. *shrugs*

The "Fairness Doctrine" will NEVER be instituted, at least not in the sense that the right is so afraid of.

yes, I said that....

Don't worry, Rush isn't going anywhere.

matters not to me.

I'm so sick of the persecution complex the far right has. (Not necessarily referring to you here.)

fair enough, but Clyburn how does draw some water in the house, should not surface this crap.

 

[WillowTree]

Hasn't the EPA sidestepped Congress??? hmmmm?

I think you're missing my point.

I don't deny that there have been sidesteps.

I think that you're making a Beck-like conspiracy theory jump by taking a quote from a Congressman to mean that the Obama Administration was going to sidestep Congress, even though NO ONE in the Administration OR the FCC have called for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

well, that congressman ( in the op) has a daughter who is on the fcc....in fact she chairs it.

Now, I won't jump to conclusions BUT it would be interesting to see if she has an opinion on this. I might be surprised, how knows. *shrugs*

Traj honey, it says right in the article that she's on record as being flat out against the FD.

 

[Trajan]

I think you're missing my point.

I don't deny that there have been sidesteps.

I think that you're making a Beck-like conspiracy theory jump by taking a quote from a Congressman to mean that the Obama Administration was going to sidestep Congress, even though NO ONE in the Administration OR the FCC have called for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

well, that congressman ( in the op) has a daughter who is on the fcc....in fact she chairs it.

Now, I won't jump to conclusions BUT it would be interesting to see if she has an opinion on this. I might be surprised, how knows. *shrugs*

Traj honey, it says right in the article that she's on record as being flat out against the FD.

and there ya go. thats what I get for not reading the link......

 

[Muscovite]

Is this the same James Clyburn (D-S.C.) who boasted the allegation that the GOP conspired to plant and fund Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Senatorial race? This from the highest ranking elected Democrat in South Carolina who doesn't have a clue as to what was going on in his own state's Democratic party. He makes an allegation but provides no backup. Typical lib!!! By the way Clyburn, how is that investigation that you were going to do working out for ya? Your silence has been deafening!

 

[GOP_John]

Fairness is just a euphemism for control, Democrats are all about control. I don't know who is the bigger control freak, Democrats or the American Christian Taliban.

 

[BlindBoo]

Typical Liberal bullshit...They can't win on a level playing field ex: Air America so they cry like a baby that the world is unfair so we need it to step in and punish conservative radio by getting the successful shows taken off the air...and this is what it's all about.Why can't the Libs go out and start their own shows to counter the right....Oh yeh we go back to Air America again which was an absolute failure.

They can't make it on their own so they need Big Government with the big hammer to stand behind them when they go after the right.What a friggin joke.

FYI-The fairness doctrine was never used to silence anyone or take anyone off the air. Simply put, it did not allow a station to broadcast a single political point of view 24/7. It force station managers to air different points of view. It never forced them to give equal time to anyone. Why do pseudo-cons oppose airing different points of view on political issues? Are they afraid they listeners might not buy all the BS they peddle?

 

[signelect]

Fair is a matter of opinion, if you hear something you don't like or don't agree with quit listening. Last time I checked, my radio had a dial where I could change stations or just turn it off. Quit listening and the sponsor will stop sponsoring. I have a few talk radio host who are off the wall so I just don't listen. There are some congressmen who are nuts and I don't listen. We have a guy in Houston with a funny name, (my opinion) who always shows up screaming unfair with a certain group is involved but let someone of the other side get in trouble and you never hear a word. IS THAR FAIR?

 

[Meister]

From what we saw from "Air America", private companies would lose money and sponsors.
Not too mention more government control.

 

[Jarhead]

Typical Liberal bullshit...They can't win on a level playing field ex: Air America so they cry like a baby that the world is unfair so we need it to step in and punish conservative radio by getting the successful shows taken off the air...and this is what it's all about.Why can't the Libs go out and start their own shows to counter the right....Oh yeh we go back to Air America again which was an absolute failure.

They can't make it on their own so they need Big Government with the big hammer to stand behind them when they go after the right.What a friggin joke.

FYI-The fairness doctrine was never used to silence anyone or take anyone off the air. Simply put, it did not allow a station to broadcast a single political point of view 24/7. It force station managers to air different points of view. It never forced them to give equal time to anyone. Why do pseudo-cons oppose airing different points of view on political issues? Are they afraid they listeners might not buy all the BS they peddle?

No...that is how you opted to spin our view of it...but that is not how we view it at all.

For whatever reason, hiostory of ratings show that liberal talk shows do not have the same success as conservative talk shows.

So the fairness doctrine would FORCE a business (radio station for example) to air shows that are not in the best interest of success for the business.

And to be frank, it is not appropriate in the eyes of a conservative for the government to tell a business that they must sell or produce something that will generate negative revenue.

Now you can debate whether or not that is a fair that profit is the motivation as opposed to equality of voices heard.....but please do not make a mockery of the conservative thought process by intentionally misprepresetning why we feel as we do.

 

[BlindBoo]

Typical Liberal bullshit...They can't win on a level playing field ex: Air America so they cry like a baby that the world is unfair so we need it to step in and punish conservative radio by getting the successful shows taken off the air...and this is what it's all about.Why can't the Libs go out and start their own shows to counter the right....Oh yeh we go back to Air America again which was an absolute failure.

They can't make it on their own so they need Big Government with the big hammer to stand behind them when they go after the right.What a friggin joke.

FYI-The fairness doctrine was never used to silence anyone or take anyone off the air. Simply put, it did not allow a station to broadcast a single political point of view 24/7. It force station managers to air different points of view. It never forced them to give equal time to anyone. Why do pseudo-cons oppose airing different points of view on political issues? Are they afraid they listeners might not buy all the BS they peddle?

No...that is how you opted to spin our view of it...but that is not how we view it at all.

For whatever reason, hiostory of ratings show that liberal talk shows do not have the same success as conservative talk shows.

So the fairness doctrine would FORCE a business (radio station for example) to air shows that are not in the best interest of success for the business.

And to be frank, it is not appropriate in the eyes of a conservative for the government to tell a business that they must sell or produce something that will generate negative revenue.

Now you can debate whether or not that is a fair that profit is the motivation as opposed to equality of voices heard.....but please do not make a mockery of the conservative thought process by intentionally misprepresetning why we feel as we do.

If it were brought back by the FCC in it's old form it would do nothing of the kind. Stations are/were not required to air any opposition shows. It allowed wide laditude for the broadcasters to give opposing views time to air their side of an issue. It's not spin, it's history.

There is no misrepresenting that sides POV. The claim was that the Fairness Doctrine would force Talk radio shows like Rush Limbaugh off the air, or even force broadcasters to give equal time to the other side. It's simply not the case. Never happened.

 

[Jarhead]

FYI-The fairness doctrine was never used to silence anyone or take anyone off the air. Simply put, it did not allow a station to broadcast a single political point of view 24/7. It force station managers to air different points of view. It never forced them to give equal time to anyone. Why do pseudo-cons oppose airing different points of view on political issues? Are they afraid they listeners might not buy all the BS they peddle?

No...that is how you opted to spin our view of it...but that is not how we view it at all.

For whatever reason, hiostory of ratings show that liberal talk shows do not have the same success as conservative talk shows.

So the fairness doctrine would FORCE a business (radio station for example) to air shows that are not in the best interest of success for the business.

And to be frank, it is not appropriate in the eyes of a conservative for the government to tell a business that they must sell or produce something that will generate negative revenue.

Now you can debate whether or not that is a fair that profit is the motivation as opposed to equality of voices heard.....but please do not make a mockery of the conservative thought process by intentionally misprepresetning why we feel as we do.

If it were brought back by the FCC in it's old form it would do nothing of the kind. Stations are/were not required to air any opposition shows. It allowed wide laditude for the broadcasters to give opposing views time to air their side of an issue. It's not spin, it's history.

There is no misrepresenting that sides POV. The claim was that the Fairness Doctrine would force Talk radio shows like Rush Limbaugh off the air, or even force broadcasters to give equal time to the other side. It's simply not the case. Never happened.

it is government intervention where such is not necessary.
It is not an issue of equality. Anyone can start a business...a radio program....
But in a way...and I ask you open your mind to the analogy I am making...

It is like saying that a store MUST sell from one manufacturer at least one product if it already sells from a competative manufacturer.

 

[Jarhead]

Here is a better analogy...

Would it be appropriate for congress to pass legislation saying that a classical music station must "every now and then" play heavy metal music?

 

[BlindBoo]

Here is a better analogy...

Would it be appropriate for congress to pass legislation saying that a classical music station must "every now and then" play heavy metal music?

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to politcal subject matters. By advancing only one political point of view, as most Clear Channel stations do, the conversation is controlled, limited.

Congress did not pass the Fairness Doctrine. It was an FCC rule.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I don't think there should be any legislative mandate on the tone and timbre of speech from talk radio.

I do think some talk radio hosts, producers, columnists, bloggers and pundits should show better taste and discretion when making political points. Strange how the more inflammatory they get, the more popular they become.

But, that's the price we pay as a free society where stupidity, the inane, the demagogue are prized above the rational and articulate.

You know a white radio talk show host no,, make that two, had to give up their jobs for using the N word. But blacks can use the N word.., that's real fair and unbalanced innit?

Don't even start with this race baiting bullshit. I've not heard one black radio talk show host say "the N-word", the FCC won't allow it. Plus the FCC didn't take anyone off the air in the case your referring too. Her sponsors decided they wouldn't spend their hard earned money on her racist bullshit, which is their right in a free market society.

Both sides need to realize it's not your fucking birthright to have a radio talk show, and it's not the government's right to decide who does either.