Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Care, you can spin it anyway you want. Libs can't compete with conservatives so they now want to silence them
That is what they want - along with some screwed up Republicans
In any case, it's over:No one would be silenced? And you just have no idea what the fairness doctrine is or was the 40 years or so that it was in existance.
read the quote i posted from the Museum of Broadcasting, it explains it.
no radio host would ever be silenced! The fairness doctrine does not silence anyone!
it only requires that on topics with great public concern or interest, that an opposing view, also be aired....so that the public can hear both sides of each issue!
WHAT is wrong with that rsr?
care
The second is the Pence amendment to forbid the FCC from re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine. I live-blogged the debate on this amendment earlier today, and the voice vote at the time was said to carry Pence to victory. He wanted a recorded vote and got it. The final result: an overwhelming rejection of the Fairness Doctrine, 309-115, with 1 vote present. The Democrats split almost exactly, while all voting Republicans voted for the amendment.
No one would be silenced? And you just have no idea what the fairness doctrine is or was the 40 years or so that it was in existance.
read the quote i posted from the Museum of Broadcasting, it explains it.
no radio host would ever be silenced! The fairness doctrine does not silence anyone!
it only requires that on topics with great public concern or interest, that an opposing view, also be aired....so that the public can hear both sides of each issue!
WHAT is wrong with that rsr?
care
It has to do with what? The NY Times? The Chicago Tribune? ABC, NBC, CBS?
All moot anyways:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA1OTkxY2FlNGVkMTU0Yzc3NjNjOTU3YmQyZWQ5NWQ=
Care, when conservatives talk about the garbage on TV - libs tell us to turn the channel and forget about it
Why can't libs do the same with the radio dial?
Libs can't compete with conservatives so now they want people to be FORCED to hear their crap
BTW: Ed Schultz beats Sean Hannity in almost every market they compete head to head. With less advertising and a weaker signal. But Hannity is still given more stations, and more powerful signals.
let's hear your view of what the fairness doctrine says and does, i have aleady post a link from the broadcasting museum giving the history of it....YOU obviously by this post, DISAGREE.
so kathianne, what's your take on the actual fairness doctrine and what is it that you oppose, regarding it?
care
While the Fairness Doctrine was in place, the only source of political discourse on radio was NPR/FM. Paid for by our tax $. It was not unbiased, but the market place had no reason for trying to compete. We only had network news, leaned left, but not like now. Newspaper editors actually edited.
Then it was repealed. Enter Rush, then a whole lot more. Mostly from Right, some Left. Most left couldn't garner audience. One of two things, the hosts sucked or their audience didn't buy it. Dunno.
Now the networks are no longer hiding bias. It's impossible to find 'news' that is edited regarding bias or if it is, I can't imagine the original content. Out of the 3 main cable news outlets, 1 is not liberal, though not nearly what one would call conservative, as the only substantial study from U of Chicago/Stanford also found.
So, one must assume the calls for a reintro of Fairness Doctrine is aimed at Talk Radio. Meaning 3 hours of Rush must be countered with someone of a different pov. Problem is, Rush sells mega advertising, based on ratings. Check Air America and bankruptcy.
It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcast-ing Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974).
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.”[url]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053[/url]
it only affects broadcasting, not ROP and not cable kathianne, because cable and news print is endless, not limited in any manner....a new newspaper and a new cable station can be opened this very minute.
Broadcasting is done on the PUBLIC'S airwaves, and is very limited. Only a few are given licenses to broadcast.
and i ask again, what's to oppose on this, from you?
Howard Fineman-Living Politics
Leveling the Media Playing Field
The Democrats are vying to reinstate the 'fairness doctrine'in a bid to combat conservative dominance of the radio airwaves.
Web-exclusive commentary
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 2:25 p.m. CT May 15, 2007
May 15, 2007 - As the 10 Republican presidential candidates debate this week on their favorite cable networkFox NewsCapitol Hill Democrats are planning a new drive for access elsewhere, on talk radio and local broadcast TV.
Democrats have two media-access goals.
One is to prod local broadcast television and radio stations to renew their atrophied commitment to producing and airing their own public-affairs programmingshows that Democrats think would at least give them a chance to be heard. Some Democrats want to require stations to give free time for campaign debates, and even free campaign advertising as part of the stations public-service licensing requirement.
The Democrats more ambitious (and longer-range) goal is to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine
For decades, the doctrine effectively kept partisan shows (the Rush Limbaughs of the world) off the airwaves by requiring radio and television stations to make comparable time availablefreefor opposing views....
let's hear your view of what the fairness doctrine says and does, i have aleady post a link from the broadcasting museum giving the history of it....YOU obviously by this post, DISAGREE.
so kathianne, what's your take on the actual fairness doctrine and what is it that you oppose, regarding it?
care
it only affects broadcasting, not ROP and not cable kathianne, because cable and news print is endless, not limited in any manner....a new newspaper and a new cable station can be opened this very minute.
Broadcasting is done on the PUBLIC'S airwaves, and is very limited. Only a few are given licenses to broadcast.
and i ask again, what's to oppose on this, from you?
So Care, I am very much against this idea. But if we are to get into limiting free speech, then let's impose it on all broadcast, newspapers, and magazines too. The NY Times must provide 'balance' wherever opinion is expressed-be it 'news' or 'opinion'. For example, a Headline that says, "Bush's Immigration Bill Killed', must have an alternative Headline say, "Democrats Fail In Important Bill". Sounds like a lot of work and ink.
Wel, I disagree with your assessment of this and I agree with the Supreme Court's sentiments...
The Fairness doctrine does not limit free speech, you are LIMITING it now.
The fairness Doctirne supports the First Amendment, without it, the public does not get both views of public issues,
so Kathi, it is you that supports limiting speech, on our limited airwave space.
and this has nothing to do with "talk radio"!
that is pure bs on Rush's part, hype to get you all on your side in a huffy, it's an outright lie.
Sorry you can't see that Kathi.
Care
Care, there is hardly a limited number of talk radio stations. Most you can listen to via the internet
View this link and click your state
http://www.usliveradio.com/
for the last time rsr, this has nothing to do with talk radio, or rush limbaugh.... the fairness doctrine WOULD NOT force a democratic talk show on the air or take rush's time away.... that's a LIE rsr, or a misunderstanding as to what the fairness doctrine actually did or would do if it were reinstated.
the fairness doctrine involves issues of public interest being given FULL DISCLOSURE, NOT JUST THE VIEW OF ONE SIDE, on a public issue...
the public owns the limited airwaves, not the few radio stations that get licenced for it by us.
care
Care, so why should radio stations be forced to carry programming nobody wants to hear?
Why stop at talk radio? Should a rock and roll station be forced to play some country music for balance? Or some R&B?
They only have to give time for an opposing point of view on an issue of great public interest Rsr.... a blip, giving the opposing point of view. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE A JOB TO A RADIO HOST THAT IS A LIBERAL,
THAT is a LIE rsr...got it?
That is FALSE.
That is not true.
I don't know how else to say it, this has NOTHING to do with talk radio....and the liberals failing at it and all the other garbage that you are spouting rsr, it just doesn't.
I know I say this upon a deaf ear, because you keep asking me the same silly questions that have nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine and its intent.
care
