The Fairness Doctrine

[BlackAsCoal]

Fairness is a concept that will never be defined to anyone's satisfaction and striving for it can only lead to bitter envy.
America couldn't even agree on three people to head up the department of fairness.

I think America is capable of doing a pretty good job of defining and defending fairness if we put our minds to it.

Actually what is fair isn't that difficult to define. If you don't want it happening to you, it probably ain't fair.

 

[Bern80]

I think America is capable of doing a pretty good job of defining and defending fairness if we put our minds to it.

Actually what is fair isn't that difficult to define. If you don't want it happening to you, it probably ain't fair.

Fairness is determined by what you like? Obviously no we can't agree on what is fair or not. This definition is what has become the problem with our country. You want to remove all the unfairness out of life, but you define that as whatever is or is not acceptable to you.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Fairness is determined by what you like? Obviously no we can't agree on what is fair or not. This definition is what has become the problem with our country. You want to remove all the unfairness out of life, but you define that as whatever is or is not acceptable to you.

This has nothing to do with "removing all fairmess from life" and everything to do with who owns the American airwaves.

Again, fair is easy.

Would republicans be satisfied if liberal corporations owned the vast majority of the airwaves and only promoted their ideology.

Easy answer .. hell to the no they would not be satisfied. They scream like banshees now about the "liberal mainstream press" when liberals don't own that either

What's fair is easy.

 

[Shogun]

scream like banshees


hey now, goddammit.. I've already used that line today.

 

[dilloduck]

I think America is capable of doing a pretty good job of defining and defending fairness if we put our minds to it.

Actually what is fair isn't that difficult to define. If you don't want it happening to you, it probably ain't fair.

People already complain that people who work harder than they do make a larger income. and that's just for starters. Who is going to develop some kind of norm form which we determine who is receving 'fair' treatment or not.

If some late night commedian makes a joke about conservatives do conservatives get equal time to respond with one of their own ?
Exactly how far do you intend to carry this "fairness" concept ?

 

[eots]

Why not just go whole hog here and have everyone make the same wages, live in the same houses, have the same amount of kids, and bribe the party chairman in the section that you happen to live in for special favors. That's equality----how could any one be against equality ?

Well now you put it that way,,I guess its ok..I wouldn't want to be accused of against equality that doesn't sound good...

 

[Toro]

The fairness doctrine is a bad idea. The market place should set what is played on the air.

However ...

A better question is whether or not media companies should be so concentrated. Companies such as Cumulus and Clear Channel have consolidated media markets, both nationally and locally. The question should be whether or not there should be such a concentration of power.

 

[dilloduck]

The fairness doctrine is a bad idea. The market place should set what is played on the air.

However ...

A better question is whether or not media companies should be so concentrated. Companies such as Cumulus and Clear Channel have consolidated media markets, both nationally and locally. The question should be whether or not there should be such a concentration of power.

I would say no--monopolizing information sources is dangerous. Just as dangerous as poisoning the minds of school kids with the seeds of any political ideology.

 

[KGB]

First, you won't find "slaves" or "slavery" in the Declaration or are they mentioned in the original constitution .. although the original Declaration written by Thomas Paine was even more clearly anti-slavery, slaves weren't mentioned in either document because even the Founders were aware that life changes and it would not always be measured by the standards they lived by. .. Note to the present

THEIR society was founded on the rights of white men SOLELY. To compare their society and hold it up as some standard by which we measure societies hundereds of years removed seems more than a bit ridiculous to me.

My comments you boldened says like it reads .. anyone who fears fairness never had being fair in mind and believes that they need advantages just as racists believe.

I define racism as an inferiority complex. People who need it believe themselves to be inferior, thus they need the advantages racism provides. Blacks weren't locked out of sports because they were inferior, they were locked out because they weren't .. the same is true about everything racism touches.

Slavery was a hot button issue back then as it was now.....it was the debate of the day & still stays with us even unto now, however, the principle on which this country was founded has not changed.....individual liberty...collective fairness or the attempted definition thereof is an attempt to pervert the original intent of the founding fathers.....regardless of what happened in the past, you are a free man (or woman) now....your destiny lies in what you can do versus a preconceived notion of what others think should by yours.....if you wish to define (or judge) a society, define it on that basis because it is that principle that allows a society to grow & mature....

 

[Shogun]

"the marketplace" is about as viable as "those people" are indicative.

 

[KGB]

I think America is capable of doing a pretty good job of defining and defending fairness if we put our minds to it.

Actually what is fair isn't that difficult to define. If you don't want it happening to you, it probably ain't fair.

& who decides what is fair?

 

[KGB]

This has nothing to do with "removing all fairmess from life" and everything to do with who owns the American airwaves.

Again, fair is easy.

Would republicans be satisfied if liberal corporations owned the vast majority of the airwaves and only promoted their ideology.

Easy answer .. hell to the no they would not be satisfied. They scream like banshees now about the "liberal mainstream press" when liberals don't own that either

What's fair is easy.

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

 

[del]

& who decides what is fair?

me

 

[eots]

& who decides what is fair?

the Obama...and his national security force of glazed eyed zealots

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"the marketplace" is about as viable as "those people" are indicative.

So the Market is not viable? Interesting... What is viable to a self proclaimed pedophile?

The Market can't be trusted, but government CAN? Is that it?

Now slow down, 'cause we all know how you love to zip in and roll out your patented drive by spewing of fully automatic idiocy...

So just take a breath and realize that I'm asking an honest question of you.

You've discounted the market, despite that market being driven by tens of millions of people... whose only interests is that they want to hear something that interests them. THAT tens of millions of people provides for advertising, which provides revenue... NOW Junior... what in the hell do you find dishonest or corrupt about that?

Now beyond the position that these talk show host occupy on your AM dial... what power do those people hold over you? What POTENTIAL POWER do they hold over you? Can they come to your home and MAKE you listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Now given your litanny of posts on this thread, it's clear that you believe that the government is the incorruptable influence needed to straigten this mess out. Not the ideological left changing their position from DO FOR ME! GIVE TO ME! SCREW THE US, Blah blah blah... No NO! It's clear that what YOU feel needs to happen, is that the GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO FORCE THE SUM OF INDIVIDUALS TO LISTEN TO THAT WHICH THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY REJECTED.

So you're demanding that those with power, infringe upon those without power... and force people to listen to one form of speech, who have already rejected that speech...

How exactly are you squaring that with the whole "Tolerant of differing ideas and Compassionate of the feelings of others'... crap? I mean you are also a self proclaimed "Liberal" are ya not?

 

[Care4all]

So the Market is not viable? Interesting... What is viable to a self proclaimed pedophile?

The Market can't be trusted, but government CAN? Is that it?

Now slow down, 'cause we all know how you love to zip in and roll out your patented drive by spewing of fully automatic idiocy...

So just take a breath and realize that I'm asking an honest question of you.

You've discounted the market, despite that market being driven by tens of millions of people... whose only interests is that they want to hear something that interests them. THAT tens of millions of people provides for advertising, which provides revenue... NOW Junior... what in the hell do you find dishonest or corrupt about that?

Now beyond the position that these talk show host occupy on your AM dial... what power do those people hold over you? What POTENTIAL POWER do they hold over you? Can they come to your home and MAKE you listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Now given your litanny of posts on this thread, it's clear that you believe that the government is the incorruptable influence needed to straigten this mess out. Not the ideological left changing their position from DO FOR ME! GIVE TO ME! SCREW THE US, Blah blah blah... No NO! It's clear that what YOU feel needs to happen, is that the GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO FORCE THE SUM OF INDIVIDUALS TO LISTEN TO THAT WHICH THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY REJECTED.

So you're demanding that those with power, infringe upon those without power... and force people to listen to one form of speech, who have already rejected that speech...

How exactly are you squaring that with the whole "Tolerant of differing ideas and Compassionate of the feelings of others'... crap? I mean you are also a self proclaimed "Liberal" are ya not?

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

 

[Care4all]

FAIRNESS = JUSTICE/justness

Fair and Square = Just and honest.

here's an elementary teaching of fairness/justness

HOW TO BE
A FAIR PERSON

- Treat people the way you want to be treated.

- Take Turns.

- Tell the truth.

- Play by the rules.

- Think about how your actions will affect others.

- Listen to people with an open mind.

- Don't blame others for your mistakes.

- Don't take advantage of other people.

- Don't play favorites.

 

[Shogun]

So the Market is not viable? Interesting... What is viable to a self proclaimed pedophile?

The Market can't be trusted, but government CAN? Is that it?

Now slow down, 'cause we all know how you love to zip in and roll out your patented drive by spewing of fully automatic idiocy...

So just take a breath and realize that I'm asking an honest question of you.

You've discounted the market, despite that market being driven by tens of millions of people... whose only interests is that they want to hear something that interests them. THAT tens of millions of people provides for advertising, which provides revenue... NOW Junior... what in the hell do you find dishonest or corrupt about that?

Now beyond the position that these talk show host occupy on your AM dial... what power do those people hold over you? What POTENTIAL POWER do they hold over you? Can they come to your home and MAKE you listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Now given your litanny of posts on this thread, it's clear that you believe that the government is the incorruptable influence needed to straigten this mess out. Not the ideological left changing their position from DO FOR ME! GIVE TO ME! SCREW THE US, Blah blah blah... No NO! It's clear that what YOU feel needs to happen, is that the GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO FORCE THE SUM OF INDIVIDUALS TO LISTEN TO THAT WHICH THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY REJECTED.

So you're demanding that those with power, infringe upon those without power... and force people to listen to one form of speech, who have already rejected that speech...

How exactly are you squaring that with the whole "Tolerant of differing ideas and Compassionate of the feelings of others'... crap? I mean you are also a self proclaimed "Liberal" are ya not?

shush now, lil girl. your teddy bear and easy bake oven will miss your company if you get all upset and have to spend your afternoon combing the knots out of your red faced tantrum hair.


and yes, the people control the government every 4 years. What they can't control is some abstract "free market" pipe dream that is no more stable than it is predictably beneficial. But, please, tell me more about "drive by spewing of automatic idiocy" and "real questions" after your ironic post.

Once again, you fail at this little thing we call posting on an internet forum.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Slavery was a hot button issue back then as it was now.....it was the debate of the day & still stays with us even unto now, however, the principle on which this country was founded has not changed.....individual liberty...collective fairness or the attempted definition thereof is an attempt to pervert the original intent of the founding fathers.....regardless of what happened in the past, you are a free man (or woman) now....your destiny lies in what you can do versus a preconceived notion of what others think should by yours.....if you wish to define (or judge) a society, define it on that basis because it is that principle that allows a society to grow & mature....

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Yurt]

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.

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

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.

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

they are all innocent right...and obama being president is what...