The Fairness Doctrine

[PubliusInfinitum]

There's no need to even try to debate anything with these bigoted assholes spewing their hate at anyone with a differing opinion. From the treatment I received from the sad pieces of shit in the past few years, I just talk about them and seldom to them.
I guess watching them post hate is vindication, as they show how pathetic they truly are.

There's really nothing left to debate, I refuse to be an obamabot and I get hated for it.

Yeah, they're idiots... but that's the nature of severe intellectual deficiency; and while its VERY rare to find one worth the cost of a bullet, this one is wouldn't be worth the effort or expense associated with spitting on them.

My goal here is to get her to post... anything to get her to say something from the heart... ANYTHING SHE FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT.

This based upon the idea that nothing undermines leftism, like leftist speaking their minds. Which is why so few are found doing it...

 

[WhiteLion]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a giant fucking baby, dude. Seems to me that the rest of us will accept Obama's citizenship. Does your pussy still ache after Tuesday? enjoy the ride for the next four years, motherfucker.

Oh, and enjoy the application of the fairness doctrine too. Go ahead and get your Ruby Ridge on, son.

Yeh the ride to a farther economic hell.....

 

[Vel]

Again, considering the FINITE RESOURCE that is the radio spectrum, conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on the radio forum. Don't like it? Evolve or get thee to Dubai. No one is saying conservatives must shut the fuck up. We are saying that you can't hog the fucking sandbox that we all own.

What? You're not capable of sliding over a little and building your own sand castle? While the airwaves may be public, at it's heart the fairness doctrine is all about telling the guy that pays for the license, the building the station broadcasts from and any taxes owed by profits made from the station what he can talk about. There are many airwaves. If liberals have a problem, let them build their own station using the public airwaves. As usual, the liberals are looking to take something that someone else has built and confiscate it for their own uses.

 

[WhiteLion]

Shogut, I must say, imo, you are the most sick ,angry and disturbed individual I've read in the decade+ I've been on any message board.
If there's ever been a better example of spewing partisan hatred than you, We'd be hard pressed to find one I'm sure.
I know you don't care so I'll just say fuck you.

Yeh hes a basketcase... hands down...

 

[Shadow]

you know, there is a little something called the OFF switch if you don't like a program....I don't like half the crap that comes over the liberal tube & the liberal rags, so I do something I am perfectly capable of....& that is to make up my own mind & ignore it.....

Obots have to be told what to do, else they get dizzy and fall over.

 

[Shadow]

Let a left wing show get on the air and compete for listeners and advertising dollars. If they can.

Work for it? Surely you jest...

 

[Care4all]

This isn't complicated... The leftist ideology is a joke... it is nothing more than the ideology wherein the stupid find common ground.

As such, non-stupid people are loathe to spend much time listening to them harp... and those who have ever listened to dispAir America know exactly what I'm talking about... it is intellectual AGONY! Those people are IDIOTS and they're helpless to do a damn thing about it.

Now the simple fact is that American are conservative... and they react to conservatism; the success of talk radio proves that conclusively. The problem that the left has with talk radio is IT EXISTS! They aren't interested in equal time... THEY WANT IT GONE! ALL of it... because talk radio discredits every word that comes out of the mouths of every leftist in public life, EVERY DAY!

They can't compete in the market place of ideas, so they do what leftists ALWAYS do, which is to go to work doing their level best to censor the opposition...

Just look through this forum and you'll see one leftist imbecile after the next making all manner of idiotic claims... The NMBLA proponent Shogun herself just within the last week declared that the fascist policies of the New Deal were responsible for the US coming out of the Depression; when it is incontestable that those policies along with the previous 'progressive manipulations of the market were directly responsible for deepening and prolonging the depression.

Another sycophant leftist declared around the same time that the US Government 'nationalized the auto-industry in 1942... DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Conservative pundits OWN the left wherever the loathsome creatures of the left can be cornered into a debate.

Conservative principles are American principles and when they're set before the citizens of the US, they win every single time... and in pre-response to the idiots that will claim that conservatism was rejected in this election... Let the record reflect that Conservatism was not being advanced by anyone, at ANY LEVEL in this election, with the rare exception of one Sarah Palin... who is solely responsible for McCain getting as close as he did.

The left will do everything in its power to enact this idiocy... and it won't slow down Conservative radio in the slightest. I listen to Talk Radio over XM most of the time except in my Z , but I've been going to upgrade the Drag Queen for months and that's all I'll need to get that done.

I haven't watched Network News, CNN, or the other cable comrades in YEARS, unless I'm specifically looking to find out what the communist talking points are on a given issue. I occasionally listen to dispAir America when I'm on the east coast, just to entertain myself with some true hate radio...

There is absolutely NOTHING FAIR about the fairness doctrine... but you can't convince the left of that... they're simply not bright enough.

sigh....you're just REPEATING partisan talking points that are not reality....PI

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

 

[KGB]

sigh....you're just REPEATING partisan talking points that are not reality....PI

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

& would be true if there were no other medium available to all sides.....this so called "Fairness Doctrine" is simply designed to muzzle political speech on one medium....with internet, TV, newspapers, magazines, ample opportunity is afforded to "get the message out".....yet, I see no calls to bring those mediums more in line with "fairness".....

 

[Shogun]

What? You're not capable of sliding over a little and building your own sand castle? While the airwaves may be public, at it's heart the fairness doctrine is all about telling the guy that pays for the license, the building the station broadcasts from and any taxes owed by profits made from the station what he can talk about. There are many airwaves. If liberals have a problem, let them build their own station using the public airwaves. As usual, the liberals are looking to take something that someone else has built and confiscate it for their own uses.

No, as a matter of fact I cannot just move on over and build my own sandcastle. I have an AM transmitter and have tried to acquire a license to broadcast. Go take a walk through Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Home Page and figure out how many open spots they give out each year. So, no, there are not "many airwaves" and building more stations won't increase the fucking radio spectrum. at all.

As usual, some conservative decided to jump into the fray without nary the slightest piece of information necessary to make a relevant point.

 

[Care4all]

& would be true if there were no other medium available to all sides.....this so called "Fairness Doctrine" is simply designed to muzzle political speech on one medium....with internet, TV, newspapers, magazines, ample opportunity is afforded to "get the message out".....yet, I see no calls to bring those mediums more in line with "fairness".....

There IS NO OTHER FREE MEDIUM to the public......as the supreme court mentioned, newspapers and other paid mediums like cable and satelite and the internet are UNLIMITED paid MEDIUMS....you can open as many new newspaper companies as you like with your own money, you can open as many internet sites or blogs as you like...they are limitless, BUT YOU CAN NOT open as many free public radio stations as you like because our government gets to choose the few people that run them, and getting the leases from us to do such, the airwaves are NOT limitless, they are restricted....and THEY ARE OURS....the publics, NOT theirs....

and so, so, so few wavelengths to share fairly or equally amongst all of those who want a part in them.

I hold the stance of one of the supreme court justices that has ruled on the constitutionality of this....because free publics airwaves are limited, not allowing a different point of view regarding issues of public interest IS CENSORING.

Our government is who gets to decide... who gets to use our limited airwaves via a lease the gvt gives them, the Fairness doctrine assures us that IF our government some day, chooses those stations to lease to ... based on political party....it would not be as great a hazzard as it could be, IF the FAIRNESS doctrine were not in place...where the station would NOT be required to alot some time for the oposing points of view on issues of public interest.

I stand by my support for it....due to the unforseeable future and to keep our government in check....and from propagandizing.

Care

 

[dilloduck]

There IS NO OTHER FREE MEDIUM to the public......as the supreme court mentioned, newspapers and other paid mediums like cable and satelite and the internet are UNLIMITED paid MEDIUMS....you can open as many new newspaper companies as you like with your own money, you can open as many internet sites or blogs as you like...they are limitless, BUT YOU CAN NOT open as many free public radio stations as you like because our government gets to choose the few people that run them, and getting the leases from us to do such, the airwaves are NOT limitless, they are restricted....and THEY ARE OURS....the publics, NOT theirs....

and so, so, so few wavelengths to share fairly or equally amongst all of those who want a part in them.

I hold the stance of one of the supreme court justices that has ruled on the constitutionality of this....because free publics airwaves are limited, not allowing a different point of view regarding issues of public interest IS CENSORING.

Our government is who gets to decide... who gets to use our limited airwaves via a lease the gvt gives them, the Fairness doctrine assures us that IF our government some day, chooses those stations to lease to ... based on political party....it would not be as great a hazzard as it could be, IF the FAIRNESS doctrine were not in place...where the station would NOT be required to alot some time for the oposing points of view on issues of public interest.

I stand by my support for it....due to the unforseeable future and to keep our government in check....and from propagandizing.

Care

Garbage--the only real point in the fairness doctrine is to restrict what messages people can hear.

 

[Care4all]

Garbage--the only real point in the fairness doctrine is to restrict what messages people can hear.

ahhhhhhhh, you believe what you have been told by your own partisan hacks like Rush....

Read what i have posted on it in this entire thread and why i believe it is a sound doctrine and if you still feel the same way then feel free to repost this thoughtless tripe again...

sheeeesh....

Care

 

[Shogun]

Garbage--the only real point in the fairness doctrine is to restrict what messages people can hear.

bullshit. no one is would quell a gazillion conservative shows on internet radio or xml. You are still free to pick up an audio feed from Sean Hannity, yes? The drama queen antics won't make the finite nature of the radio spectrum any less of a fact.

 

[dilloduck]

bullshit. no one is would quell a gazillion conservative shows on internet radio or xml. You are still free to pick up an audio feed from Sean Hannity, yes? The drama queen antics won't make the finite nature of the radio spectrum any less of a fact.

Well let's here your version of it, Shog. Why is it that some people want it ?

 

[Shogun]

some people want what? a fair shot at using a shared national resource? Again, no one is saying you can't have talking heads talking about conservative issues. What is being said is that you can't lord over a finite national resource as if you own the radio spectrum. You dont. If it were only the case of plopping in a station at every tenth of a station frequency you might have a point. But thats just not how radio works. Do you see anyone bitching about sharing cable news channels? no, you don't. Why is that? because it's possible to pump out damn near an infinite amount of stations because the vector of transmission is not a limited resource. The same with the internet. Has anyone said that you cannot listen to sean hannity from a feed on Sean Hannity Of course not. You just don't want to share the radio. Thats the fact of this matter. You think it's a piece of cake to get the FCC to grant you a license to broadcast (even an AM station)? Go try and see how far you get.

 

[dilloduck]

some people want what? a fair shot at using a shared national resource? Again, no one is saying you can't have talking heads talking about conservative issues. What is being said is that you can't lord over a finite national resource as if you own the radio spectrum. You dont. If it were only the case of plopping in a station at every tenth of a station frequency you might have a point. But thats just not how radio works. Do you see anyone bitching about sharing cable news channels? no, you don't. Why is that? because it's possible to pump out damn near an infinite amount of stations because the vector of transmission is not a limited resource. The same with the internet. Has anyone said that you cannot listen to sean hannity from a feed on Sean Hannity Of course not. You just don't want to share the radio. Thats the fact of this matter. You think it's a piece of cake to get the FCC to grant you a license to broadcast (even an AM station)? Go try and see how far you get.

ie----you are claiming that the conservatives have a monoply on the radio and propagandize with it.

 

[KGB]

There IS NO OTHER FREE MEDIUM to the public......as the supreme court mentioned, newspapers and other paid mediums like cable and satelite and the internet are UNLIMITED paid MEDIUMS....you can open as many new newspaper companies as you like with your own money, you can open as many internet sites or blogs as you like...they are limitless, BUT YOU CAN NOT open as many free public radio stations as you like because our government gets to choose the few people that run them, and getting the leases from us to do such, the airwaves are NOT limitless, they are restricted....and THEY ARE OURS....the publics, NOT theirs....

and so, so, so few wavelengths to share fairly or equally amongst all of those who want a part in them.

I hold the stance of one of the supreme court justices that has ruled on the constitutionality of this....because free publics airwaves are limited, not allowing a different point of view regarding issues of public interest IS CENSORING.

Our government is who gets to decide... who gets to use our limited airwaves via a lease the gvt gives them, the Fairness doctrine assures us that IF our government some day, chooses those stations to lease to ... based on political party....it would not be as great a hazzard as it could be, IF the FAIRNESS doctrine were not in place...where the station would NOT be required to alot some time for the oposing points of view on issues of public interest.

I stand by my support for it....due to the unforseeable future and to keep our government in check....and from propagandizing.

Care

and have any of you libbies who constantly pontificate bout the public's right ever stopped & considered that perhaps the public has already chosen on this matter.....that's right, how well did Air America do? The market place (i.e. THE PUBLIC) has already voted on what works & what doesn't. That is the beauty of the market, it allows people to decide on the issues. Conservative talk radio is chosen, liberal isn't. Those are the cold facts. And allow me to ask you all another question, if liberals aren't getting their message out without this so called fairness doctrine in place, then how did they win the White House & an almost filibuster-proof Congress? Once again, the results don't support the argument you put forward....

 

[editec]

I do not like the sound of the fairness doctrine.

It smacks of censorship to me.

OTOH, I defintiely do believe that allowing massive media conglomerates to monopoloize the media is a disasterous mistake for a democratic republic.

 

[KGB]

I do not like the sound of the fairness doctrine.

It smacks of censorship to me.

OTOH, I defintiely do believe that allowing massive media conglomerates to monopoloize the media is a disasterous mistake for a democratic republic.

see the television industry.....

 

[Shogun]

ie----you are claiming that the conservatives have a monoply on the radio and propagandize with it.

clearly conservatives have a monopoly on talk radio. There isn't a single liberal option on the radio in the midwest. Yet, I can turn on no less than 3 stations (from kc, stl and columbia) that play beck, oreilly, miller, hannity limbaugh, boortz and mcconnel. So, yes, it's pretty goddamn clear that conservatives want to dominate the cake and eat it to.