Rep. Clyburn: Bring back Fairness Doctrine

[uptownlivin90]

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?

Why is that any of the government's business?

 

[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?

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.

I know it was an FCC rule...but now it is discussion of congressional legislation.

So should a retail store that sells Obama bumper stickers only be allowed to if it also sells an opponents bumber stickers? What if the store is in San Francisco? Should that store be forced to buy a product it knows it wont be able to sell? SHould the manufacturer of the bumper sticker be forced to have product sit on the shelves and not sell?

Truth is, talk radio is not "news". It's draw is the entertainment...and people liked to be entertained by things they like. When I listen to Levin, I am not interested in hearing people offer opposing views. I have debates on opposing views all the time. I see it on the news, I see it during the elctions, I see it on C-SPAN. I liten to Levin as I want to hear what I want to hear.

It is not that I am not open to opposing views....But when I want them I will ask for them.

If someone with opposing views wants equal air time.....start a show....

 

[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.

I know it was an FCC rule...but now it is discussion of congressional legislation.

So should a retail store that sells Obama bumper stickers only be allowed to if it also sells an opponents bumber stickers? What if the store is in San Francisco? Should that store be forced to buy a product it knows it wont be able to sell? SHould the manufacturer of the bumper sticker be forced to have product sit on the shelves and not sell?

Truth is, talk radio is not "news". It's draw is the entertainment...and people liked to be entertained by things they like. When I listen to Levin, I am not interested in hearing people offer opposing views. I have debates on opposing views all the time. I see it on the news, I see it during the elctions, I see it on C-SPAN. I liten to Levin as I want to hear what I want to hear.

It is not that I am not open to opposing views....But when I want them I will ask for them.

If someone with opposing views wants equal air time.....start a show....

Just saying that the FCC if it wanted to, and it doesn't, they don't need Congress.

Merchandising has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Neither did print media.

The shows I'm talking about are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity. It cannot be denied that they mostly talk about politics. They are spinners that present a lopsided view of the politcal equation.

Once again the Fairness Doctrine never, ever forced anything like "equal time" on broadcasters.

Quite honestly, I think most ditto-heads would ignore any rebuttal that differed from the talking point of the day anyway.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I know it was an FCC rule...but now it is discussion of congressional legislation.

So should a retail store that sells Obama bumper stickers only be allowed to if it also sells an opponents bumber stickers? What if the store is in San Francisco? Should that store be forced to buy a product it knows it wont be able to sell? SHould the manufacturer of the bumper sticker be forced to have product sit on the shelves and not sell?

Truth is, talk radio is not "news". It's draw is the entertainment...and people liked to be entertained by things they like. When I listen to Levin, I am not interested in hearing people offer opposing views. I have debates on opposing views all the time. I see it on the news, I see it during the elctions, I see it on C-SPAN. I liten to Levin as I want to hear what I want to hear.

It is not that I am not open to opposing views....But when I want them I will ask for them.

If someone with opposing views wants equal air time.....start a show....

Just saying that the FCC if it wanted to, and it doesn't, they don't need Congress.

Merchandising has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Neither did print media.

The shows I'm talking about are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity. It cannot be denied that they mostly talk about politics. They are spinners that present a lopsided view of the politcal equation.

Once again the Fairness Doctrine never, ever forced anything like "equal time" on broadcasters.

Quite honestly, I think most ditto-heads would ignore any rebuttal that differed from the talking point of the day anyway.

I am not saying the fairness doctrine has to do with merchandise.

I am using it as an analogy.

Why not apply the same "fairness" to print like bumber stcikers; politcally motivated books?
Should a comapny that publishes a Hannity book be forced to publish a Maddow book?

 

[BlindBoo]

I know it was an FCC rule...but now it is discussion of congressional legislation.

So should a retail store that sells Obama bumper stickers only be allowed to if it also sells an opponents bumber stickers? What if the store is in San Francisco? Should that store be forced to buy a product it knows it wont be able to sell? SHould the manufacturer of the bumper sticker be forced to have product sit on the shelves and not sell?

Truth is, talk radio is not "news". It's draw is the entertainment...and people liked to be entertained by things they like. When I listen to Levin, I am not interested in hearing people offer opposing views. I have debates on opposing views all the time. I see it on the news, I see it during the elctions, I see it on C-SPAN. I liten to Levin as I want to hear what I want to hear.

It is not that I am not open to opposing views....But when I want them I will ask for them.

If someone with opposing views wants equal air time.....start a show....

Just saying that the FCC if it wanted to, and it doesn't, they don't need Congress.

Merchandising has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Neither did print media.

The shows I'm talking about are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity. It cannot be denied that they mostly talk about politics. They are spinners that present a lopsided view of the politcal equation.

Once again the Fairness Doctrine never, ever forced anything like "equal time" on broadcasters.

Quite honestly, I think most ditto-heads would ignore any rebuttal that differed from the talking point of the day anyway.

I am not saying the fairness doctrine has to do with merchandise.

I am using it as an analogy.

Why not apply the same "fairness" to print like bumber stcikers; politcally motivated books?
Should a comapny that publishes a Hannity book be forced to publish a Maddow book?

The Fairness Doctrine specifically covered Licensed Broadcast media. Not newspapers, publishers, or merchandise.

 

[Meister]

Just saying that the FCC if it wanted to, and it doesn't, they don't need Congress.

Merchandising has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Neither did print media.

The shows I'm talking about are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity. It cannot be denied that they mostly talk about politics. They are spinners that present a lopsided view of the politcal equation.

Once again the Fairness Doctrine never, ever forced anything like "equal time" on broadcasters.

Quite honestly, I think most ditto-heads would ignore any rebuttal that differed from the talking point of the day anyway.

I am not saying the fairness doctrine has to do with merchandise.

I am using it as an analogy.

Why not apply the same "fairness" to print like bumber stcikers; politcally motivated books?
Should a comapny that publishes a Hannity book be forced to publish a Maddow book?

The Fairness Doctrine specifically covered Licensed Broadcast media. Not newspapers, publishers, or merchandise.

Yeah....funny that, huh?

 

[xotoxi]

He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine...

Wait a minute?

How can we get any more balanced than Fox?

Not only are they balanced, but they are also fair!

That's a kick-ass combo if you axe me!!!

 

[Meister]

He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine...

Wait a minute?

How can we get any more balanced than Fox?

Not only are they balanced, but they are also fair!

That's a kick-ass combo if you axe me!!!

Yeah, like MSNBC, NBC, CNN....that would be television....then we have LA Times, NY Times, ect with the newspapers.
But fortunately, they just want to focus on the radio airways....I get it, the radio needs another "Air America" with Al Franken.

 

[Jarhead]

Just saying that the FCC if it wanted to, and it doesn't, they don't need Congress.

Merchandising has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Neither did print media.

The shows I'm talking about are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity. It cannot be denied that they mostly talk about politics. They are spinners that present a lopsided view of the politcal equation.

Once again the Fairness Doctrine never, ever forced anything like "equal time" on broadcasters.

Quite honestly, I think most ditto-heads would ignore any rebuttal that differed from the talking point of the day anyway.

I am not saying the fairness doctrine has to do with merchandise.

I am using it as an analogy.

Why not apply the same "fairness" to print like bumber stcikers; politcally motivated books?
Should a comapny that publishes a Hannity book be forced to publish a Maddow book?

The Fairness Doctrine specifically covered Licensed Broadcast media. Not newspapers, publishers, or merchandise.

uh...I know that...

As I said...twice now...I was using an analogy.

Why do you keep on ignoring the analogy and simply saying that the faiurness doctrine does not apply to it?

My question is why just broadcast media? Why not print? Why not merchandise?

 

[BlindBoo]

I am not saying the fairness doctrine has to do with merchandise.

I am using it as an analogy.

Why not apply the same "fairness" to print like bumber stcikers; politcally motivated books?
Should a comapny that publishes a Hannity book be forced to publish a Maddow book?

The Fairness Doctrine specifically covered Licensed Broadcast media. Not newspapers, publishers, or merchandise.

uh...I know that...

As I said...twice now...I was using an analogy.

Why do you keep on ignoring the analogy and simply saying that the faiurness doctrine does not apply to it?

My question is why just broadcast media? Why not print? Why not merchandise?

Because your analogies were simply not covered under the FCC rule we are discussing. It only concerned Broadcast media. Radio stations and Televison stations.

 

[uptownlivin90]

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.

the fcc does allow it, private companies typically control that.

I listen to various urban radio stations all the time, never heard it.