The Fairness Doctrine

[BlackAsCoal]

they may scream, but they don't advocate muzzling those voices, that is the key difference....

Oh really ...

Update On Journalists Arrested At Republican Convention

At the Republican National Convention in Minnesota this month, there was an unprecedented assault on freedom of the press as dozens of journalists were arrested along with the protesters they were covering. Those arrested included members of local broadcast media, the Associated Press, and mainstream newspapers, along with alternative media and Internet news sites.

The actions of law enforcement in St. Paul were thoroughly unjustifiable and smacked of police state suppression of free speech. It is a black mark on the city’s reputation, and the fact that it was done with the cooperation of the Republican Party doesn’t say much for their commitment to the First Amendment either.
News Corpse Censorship

I'm sure you're already aware of right-wing attacks on Al-Jazerra, PBS, NPR, and a variety of so-called "left-wing" news organizations .. if not, I'll post them as well.

"Embeded journalists" was censorship of the highest order. Americans only got the news the Bush Administration wanted them to hear .. some of which was totally concocted .. like Jessica Lynch, toppling of Saddam's statue, Pat Tillman, and a host of bullshit that was absolutely false.

AND, if you're not aware of republican attempts to censor the very medium we're communicating on now, the internet, I'll post those as well.

Suggesting that republicans haven't tried to censor news and information they don't like is just flat out wrong .. and more importantly, the corporate media championed the false information, didn't print, post, or tell the truth when it was known, and didn't print, post, or tell of the opposition to the corporate invasion of Iraq, nor did it print, post, or tell of the evidence the invasion was a lie long before we marched off towar.

 

[KGB]

I appreciate your perspective even though I disagree with it.

First, African-Americans are only relatively free in America .. meaning, it's much better than it was, but it ain't the same freedom and protections that whites enjoy. Any questions about, see: criminal justice.

which particular additional rights & freedoms do I enjoy that you don't? I worked to get to my station in life & can't recall one instance where I received preferential treatment....

Secondly, fairness does not infringe on individual liberty .. unless you mean the liberty to oppress others.

this is twisting meanings.....what happens if you work for everything you have & then in the spirit of "fairness" an entity comes along & states you have to give up some of that.....who is being oppressed in that case?

Third, this isn't about "individual liberty at all whatsoever. This is about corporations owning the American airwaves, and if you're looking to the Founders for context, Jefferson thought freedom from corporations was a basic human right.

then apply this doctrine across all mediums, not just one particular group.....remember, these are privately owned businesses we are talking about here that employ people.....

Finally, at what point will the right recognize that corporations should not own the American government?

if you recognize that this ownership occurs on both sides of the aisle, then we are in agreement.....

 

[KGB]

Oh really ...

Update On Journalists Arrested At Republican Convention

At the Republican National Convention in Minnesota this month, there was an unprecedented assault on freedom of the press as dozens of journalists were arrested along with the protesters they were covering. Those arrested included members of local broadcast media, the Associated Press, and mainstream newspapers, along with alternative media and Internet news sites.

The actions of law enforcement in St. Paul were thoroughly unjustifiable and smacked of police state suppression of free speech. It is a black mark on the city’s reputation, and the fact that it was done with the cooperation of the Republican Party doesn’t say much for their commitment to the First Amendment either.
News Corpse Censorship

I'm sure you're already aware of right-wing attacks on Al-Jazerra, PBS, NPR, and a variety of so-called "left-wing" news organizations .. if not, I'll post them as well.

"Embeded journalists" was censorship of the highest order. Americans only got the news the Bush Administration wanted them to hear .. some of which was totally concocted .. like Jessica Lynch, toppling of Saddam's statue, Pat Tillman, and a host of bullshit that was absolutely false.

AND, if you're not aware of republican attempts to censor the very medium we're communicating on now, the internet, I'll post those as well.

Suggesting that republicans haven't tried to censor news and information they don't like is just flat out wrong .. and more importantly, the corporate media championed the false information, didn't print, post, or tell the truth when it was known, and didn't print, post, or tell of the opposition to the corporate invasion of Iraq, nor did it print, post, or tell of the evidence the invasion was a lie long before we marched off towar.

Clinton Democrats CENSORSHIP AT THE DNC
Villainous Company: ABC And The DNC's Path To Censorship

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The talk show hosts hold no power over anyone...

and talk shows and their hosts are NOT PART OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE regulations and NEVER HAVE BEEN for the 70 years the Fairness Doctrine was in tack.

So, for whatever reason you and shogun and whoever think this is the case, is simply a misconception of what the Fairness Doctrine governs and really is...

care

That is simply false... It's a semantic dodge... I've read the material that you've sourced and it's nonsense. The "Fairness Doctrine" is raw subversion and it is a mechanism of the ideological LEFT to control the speech and is not distinct in the slightest from "Speech Codes" which are so prevalent on College Campuses througout the Western Hemisphere.

You can try and rationalize it as anything ya like, but the Fairness doctrine is a political tool which serves no other purpose than to control thought.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

First, African-Americans are only relatively free in America .. meaning,

Meaning that you're an idiot. Black Americans are every BIT as free as the pastiest red headed freckle-faced WHITE American.

This specious drivel you're pushing is ludicrous and you're a shame the the entire human race for even trying to advance it.

 

[Care4all]

That is simply false... It's a semantic dodge... I've read the material that you've sourced and it's nonsense. The "Fairness Doctrine" is raw subversion and it is a mechanism of the ideological LEFT to control the speech and is not distinct in the slightest from "Speech Codes" which are so prevalent on College Campuses througout the Western Hemisphere.

You can try and rationalize it as anything ya like, but the Fairness doctrine is a political tool which serves no other purpose than to control thought.

how is informing the people in a community of both opposing and supporting positions on an issue of public interest, on a limited media source which the public owns, censoring speech???

is this some sort of trick mumbo jumbo.... what is down is really up, what is black is really white, what is weak is really strong, what is arrogant is really humble, what is wrong is really right, or what is censoring is really free speech?

too much gobbledygook for me at this point....

we'll just have to agree to disagree!

care

 

[dilloduck]

how is informing the people in a community of both opposing and supporting positions on an issue of public interest, on a limited media source which the public owns, censoring speech???

is this some sort of trick mumbo jumbo.... what is down is really up, what is black is really white, what is weak is really strong, what is arrogant is really humble, what is wrong is really right, or what is censoring is really free speech?

too much gobbledygook for me at this point....

we'll just have to agree to disagree!

care

Your right---enforcing it would be so much gobbledygook we would OD on it. What are we going to do------everytime someone anywhere says "democrat" someone else gets to say "republican" ?

 

[Toro]

Meaning that you're an idiot. Black Americans are every BIT as free as the pastiest red headed freckle-faced WHITE American.

This specious drivel you're pushing is ludicrous and you're a shame the the entire human race for even trying to advance it.

That's right. Instead, you should exclude people who aren't "real" Americans because they don't think right, which is a highly noble ideal and what America is all about.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

how is informing the people in a community of both opposing and supporting positions on an issue of public interest, on a limited media source which the public owns, censoring speech???

Easy... THAT'S NOT WHAT THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" IS!

Talk radio does essentially two things...

IT TALKS ABOUT THE NEWS OF THE DAY... which it gets from the Anti-American sources of the MSM Television and Print media..

Meaning that Talk Radio BEGINS EVERY DISCUSSION WITH POINTING OUT A LEFTIST POSITION.

Secondly it takes callers... MANY OF WHICH ARE LEFTISTS, who are free to speak their mind.

You're claiming that talk radio doesn't give equal time to the opposition: When in TRUTH, TALK RADIO IS EQUAL TIME!

Talk Radio is the response from all of the OTHER MEDIA WHICH SPEWS THE INCESSANT LEFTIST POSITION 24 HOURS A DAY!

The Fairness Doctrine will not force Keith Olberman to sit there and let Mark Levin respond to his spewage. It will not tell Chris Mathews to sit still while Ann Coulter rips his latest leg tingling episode to shreads...

You can claim it will all day long and the simple fact is you're full of shit.

They'll put some moderate GOP camera hog up there and they'll disagree around the edges with Olberman or Mathews, but they'll essentially agree with each about what ever is at issue.

The 'point - counter point' thing is dead and it ain't coming back.

As I said, the Fairness Doctrine is yet another example of the left trying to control thought and there's not much more to it than that.

 

[eots]

That's right. Instead, you should exclude people who aren't "real" Americans because they don't think right, which is a highly noble ideal and what America is all about.

I might tell them they are unamerican...but deep down what I prefer to imagine is for the most part they are real Americans thinking in a deluded and unamerican way....hate the sin not the sinner.....

 

[Care4all]

Easy... THAT'S NOT WHAT THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" IS!

Talk radio does essentially two things...

IT TALKS ABOUT THE NEWS OF THE DAY... which it gets from the Anti-American sources of the MSM Television and Print media..

Meaning that Talk Radio BEGINS EVERY DISCUSSION WITH POINTING OUT A LEFTIST POSITION.

Secondly it takes callers... MANY OF WHICH ARE LEFTISTS, who are free to speak their mind.

You're claiming that talk radio doesn't give equal time to the opposition: When in TRUTH, TALK RADIO IS EQUAL TIME!

Talk Radio is the response from all of the OTHER MEDIA WHICH SPEWS THE INCESSANT LEFTIST POSITION 24 HOURS A DAY!

The Fairness Doctrine will not force Keith Olberman to sit there and let Mark Levin respond to his spewage. It will not tell Chris Mathews to sit still while Ann Coulter rips his latest leg tingling episode to shreads...

You can claim it will all day long and the simple fact is you're full of shit.

They'll put some moderate GOP camera hog up there and they'll disagree around the edges with Olberman or Mathews, but they'll essentially agree with each about what ever is at issue.

The 'point - counter point' thing is dead and it ain't coming back.

As I said, the Fairness Doctrine is yet another example of the left trying to control thought and there's not much more to it than that.

sigh...

you obviously CAN NOT comprehend what you read...

the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE does not cover talk radio hosts....they can have all the time the owner deems, it is not met with any fairness doctrine requirements,

talk shows or talk show hosts HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE OR WHAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ASSURES OR REGULATES.

Is this clear enough for you? Talk shows and their hosts would NOT be subjected to the fairness doctrine....talk show hosts and their shows were NEVER subjected to the Fairness doctrine when it was in practice for over 70 years...right wing talk shows flourished when the fairness doctrine was in practice PI.

so your point is moot....as far as i can see?

Care

 

[dilloduck]

sigh...

you obviously CAN NOT comprehend what you read...

the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE does not cover talk radio hosts....they can have all the time the owner deems, it is not met with any fairness doctrine requirements,

talk shows or talk show hosts HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE OR WHAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ASSURES OR REGULATES.

Is this clear enough for you? Talk shows and their hosts would NOT be subjected to the fairness doctrine....talk show hosts and their shows were NEVER subjected to the Fairness doctrine when it was in practice for over 70 years...right wing talk shows flourished when the fairness doctrine was in practice PI.

so your point is moot....as far as i can see?

Care

Fairness Doctrine

I think what is covered and what is not would ALWAYS be subject to interpretation by SCOTUS.

 

[Care4all]

Fairness Doctrine

I think what is covered and what is not would ALWAYS be subject to interpretation by SCOTUS.

as with all laws, right?
and scotus uses precedence and the constitution to do its interpretations, no?

 

[WhiteLion]

as with all laws, right?
and scotus uses precedence and the constitution to do its interpretations, no?

SCOTUS if speaking in terms of Supreme Court of the United States is good, however it tends to lean to activist agendas if not carefully monitored by the other 2 branches... Freedom's not a free for all, it to has its limits....

 

[KGB]

sigh...

you obviously CAN NOT comprehend what you read...

the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE does not cover talk radio hosts....they can have all the time the owner deems, it is not met with any fairness doctrine requirements,

talk shows or talk show hosts HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE OR WHAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ASSURES OR REGULATES.

Is this clear enough for you? Talk shows and their hosts would NOT be subjected to the fairness doctrine....talk show hosts and their shows were NEVER subjected to the Fairness doctrine when it was in practice for over 70 years...right wing talk shows flourished when the fairness doctrine was in practice PI.

so your point is moot....as far as i can see?

Care

then there is no reason to have a fairness doctrine in place given the amount of media today.....it was written during a time when radio was the dominant outlet for information dissemination.....today that is no longer the case.....

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Meaning that you're an idiot. Black Americans are every BIT as free as the pastiest red headed freckle-faced WHITE American.

This specious drivel you're pushing is ludicrous and you're a shame the the entire human race for even trying to advance it.

Kiss my ass clown.

If you actually had a brain and a real argument you would have challenged what I said, not part of what I said.

 

[WhiteLion]

That is simply false... It's a semantic dodge... I've read the material that you've sourced and it's nonsense. The "Fairness Doctrine" is raw subversion and it is a mechanism of the ideological LEFT to control the speech and is not distinct in the slightest from "Speech Codes" which are so prevalent on College Campuses througout the Western Hemisphere.

You can try and rationalize it as anything ya like, but the Fairness doctrine is a political tool which serves no other purpose than to control thought.

Exactly RIGHT!! as you usually are Publius

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill

 

[WhiteLion]

Meaning that you're an idiot. Black Americans are every BIT as free as the pastiest red headed freckle-faced WHITE American.

This specious drivel you're pushing is ludicrous and you're a shame the the entire human race for even trying to advance it.

Publius ignore this guy hes obviously a dumbdown crackhead i dont even respond to his SHIT!!!

 

[WhiteLion]

sigh...

you obviously CAN NOT comprehend what you read...

the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE does not cover talk radio hosts....they can have all the time the owner deems, it is not met with any fairness doctrine requirements,

talk shows or talk show hosts HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE OR WHAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ASSURES OR REGULATES.

Is this clear enough for you? Talk shows and their hosts would NOT be subjected to the fairness doctrine....talk show hosts and their shows were NEVER subjected to the Fairness doctrine when it was in practice for over 70 years...right wing talk shows flourished when the fairness doctrine was in practice PI.

so your point is moot....as far as i can see?

Care

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(or talk radio stations) 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

Read on if you dare Fairness Doctrine

CONTROL TOOL OF COMMUNIST SOCIALISM END OF CASE...

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill

 

[Care4all]

Care you have some good points sometime and i do mean sometimes, but your wrong, your not even in the same ball park as PubliusInfinitu. Care your in a state of delusional denial the Fairness Doctrine is a tool of socialistic communism and the guy you voted for may enforce its constitutionally dangerous effects... Dont be stupid listen to PubliusInfinitu as she is dead right on....Fairness and Mayflower doctrines controls and dictates the FCC which directly regulates RADIO!!!(whos on the radio Limbaugh,Savage, Reagan etc etc...) CARE YOUR SMARTER THAN THIS....
Fairness Doctrine

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill

Well capitalism survives on breaking one of the KEY Ten commandments White lion, Covetting thy neighbor's goods....without covetting, there would be no success in capitalism or its system... just think about that for a minute of two....

What PI is stating has no backing white lion, talk show hosts are not the focus of the Fairness doctrine and it was NOT socialism when it was in place the 70 years or so....

Only people who listen to rush limbaugh and believe him over what the actual regulation covered over the years it was in place would believe that the fairness doctrine and its sister regulations censors speech, because it does not censor speech but it expands free speech on the public's airwaves.

there is nothing that you or anyone else could say that would make it censoring....censoring is cutting off free speech and the fairness doctrine expands free speech, it does not cut it off to cover only ONE side of pertinent issues.

If it were the other way around and it were liberals owning all of the public radio stations and liberals were restricting the truth or the other side on the issue from getting out to the public, then you would be feeling differently.

This is what fairness is...doing unto others what you would want them to do unto you... I don't believe it would be fair to the public to restrict the public's awareness of key issues of importance to them by either conservatives or liberals....when it is the public that owns the limited air space....they shouldn't be forced in to this kind of censorship.

I don't believe Rush's show would be effected by the fairness doctrine as other talk show hosts were not affected by it when the fairness doctrine regulations were in place....i believe you and others have bought in to that lie, spun by Rush....

Oh, and I did not vote for Obama or mccain.

care