Here Come the Fairness Doctrine

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Since Dems cannot compete in the arena of ideas with Conservatoves, libs must find a way to change the rules

Everytime liberals try to go up against conservatives on radio they fail.

Now Dems want the government to monitor political speech on the radio




Her Royal Fairness
By The Prowler
Published 5/14/2007 12:09:36 AM


SALEM'S WITCH TRIAL
According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner.

Much of the doctrine, regulated through the FCC, was largely dumped in 1987. Other parts of it, related to "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in place until 2000. The personal attack rule required anyone "attacked" over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond. A similar rule was followed for the political editorial, where a broadcaster endorsing one political candidate or issue had to give similar time for a response from those not endorsed or supported.

The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008."

That last comment appeared to be a veiled reference to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who appears to be gearing up for a presidential run. Over the past year, he has built a following both over the AM airwaves through the ABC Radio network, as well as through almost daily appearances across cable TV on the TV show Law & Order, where he plays a tough-talking district attorney.

According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular -- and highly rated -- conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.

"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."


http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=11427
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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.


May 15, 2007 - As the 10 Republican presidential candidates debate this week on their favorite cable network—Fox News—Capitol Hill Democrats are planning a new drive for access elsewhere, on talk radio and local broadcast TV.

The goal? To level the media playing field in time for the 2008 election.

Talk radio has long been a crucial power base for conservatives and Republicans; local TV stations are not.

They shy away from public-affairs programming altogether, and yet they rake in ever-larger wads of cash on political advertising.

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 programming—shows 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.”


for the complete article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18681897/site/newsweek/
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
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.


May 15, 2007 - As the 10 Republican presidential candidates debate this week on their favorite cable network—Fox News—Capitol Hill Democrats are planning a new drive for access elsewhere, on talk radio and local broadcast TV.

The goal? To level the media playing field in time for the 2008 election.

Talk radio has long been a crucial power base for conservatives and Republicans; local TV stations are not.

They shy away from public-affairs programming altogether, and yet they rake in ever-larger wads of cash on political advertising.

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 programming—shows 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.”


for the complete article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18681897/site/newsweek/
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
10,029
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
There we go, Dems cant compete so change the rules. Does this mean that on National TV programs the Republicans can DEMAND equal time? CBS, ABC, NBC and all their left wing cable versions must provide equal time on any program for Republicans and Conservatives? How about the left wing programs on cable? will they be required to provide "equal access"?

Maybe we can get a "Fairness Doctrine" for Comedy Central? Or Bill Mauher? How about all the stand up Comics that are vehemently against Republicans and Conservatives? Can we demand a "Fairness Doctrine"?

And your post is very indicitive of your elitist bent and your "superior Intellect". Your a biased boob that is trying to think for the rest of us, of course for our "own good".
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
We have a thing in this country then many enjoy and don't seem to completely understand ^^^^^^^^, called freedom.

If you don't like it move somewhere else.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
For a party that bellows about free speech - they sure want to silence anyone who disagrees with them

Also, libs were in a tizzy the government was listening to terrorist phone calls - now they want the government to monitor political speech
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
The Fairness Doctrine: Revenge for Air America's Failure
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on May 20, 2007 - 03:30.
The Fairness Doctrine, the law that effectively put the kibosh on political talk radio for a number of years, might be coming back if congressional Democrats have their way. According to Fred Thompson, this turn of events was prompted in part by the failure of Air America radio:

The real issue here is not what you “can” see or hear — which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s what you’re “choosing” to see or hear.

Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.

The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn’t admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.

Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too — meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12879
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Some good news:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010378.php

June 28, 2007
Pence Amendment On Fairness Doctrine: Live Blog

I have heard from Rep. Mike Pence's office that debate on his amendment to bar the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will begin shortly, perhaps around 1:30 ET. It should last 40 minutes, and I'll live-blog it. This is an important amendment, and I suspect it will not survive -- but we need to keep the heat on Congress to keep them from making the federal government the arbiter of the content of political speech.

Keep checking back!

Democrats say they will accept the amendment. Read below.

12:56 CT - Well, the House has debated a number of issues so far, but none of them Pence's amendment. I'll have to start show prep soon, but I'm hoping that the debate will start shortly. We'll see ...

1:00 - Pence is coming to the podium on his amendment now. 40 minutes of debate ...

1:02 - Pence notes that the Fairness Doctrine had a chilling effect on public debate. Broadcasters simply wouldn't risk their licenses in order to air public debate, because of the onerous burdens it placed on second-to-second management of content.

...

1:33 - A number of Republicans have made the point that the FD came from an era when the US had few broadcast stations, and few options for informing the public. Even if one accepted that the FD didn't violate free speech, today's society hardly requires the government to force broadcasters to carry speech for balance.

1:40 - It looks like the Democrats mostly gave up arguing about the amendment. It looks like they have yielded most of their time to the Republicans.

1:42 - I spoke too soon. David Obey quotes Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to scold "yap-yap TV" and talk radio for not demanding a Fairness Doctrine -- so we can get a balanced media. Is Obey ill? Does he not understand that the FD didn't apply to newspapers?

1:46 - Obey says, "I want to let Rush be Rush!" He says Rush is discredited and he wants to keep it that way. I think he's making this up as he's going along.

1:50 - The ayes had it, but the roll-call vote will be postponed. It looks like Pence wins.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
This is where I may agree more with RSR than with you. I think that media should be left up to the free market place. It is too bad that people don’t care to listen to Air America. There are ways in which liberals can get their bias out. Perhaps some day there will be a liberal equivalent to Rush. Government should not force “equal time” onto the public. If there is a niche for liberal-slanted news, the market will find a way to get it to the people. Why not create your own news relay station and air liberal stuff?

Some things are probably best handled at least to a small degree by government (the public sector): national defense, labor regulation, environmental safety, etc. Some things, particularly those things that aren’t as crucial to America’s immediate survival, are best left to the private sector and free market – news and commentary being one of them.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
Will.........ant yu speecial...

 

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint.
Yes there is. It's called the first amendment.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Sounds like a good goal to me.

There's no reason why nutjobs like Limbaugh and Hannity should be able to spew their vile, hate-driven propaganda over the airwaves without counterpoint. Their audiences are typically the bottom of the barrel of American society. If they aren't allowed to hear the other side of the story these knuckle-dragging baboons go around thinking they're hearing the whole truth. Then they vote for candidates like Dubya and we know what a mess that causes for our country.

I can see how the fairness doctrine just might smarten America up.
Funny, when conservative talk about the garbage on TV - libs rant we can change the channel

Why can't libs do the same with Rush and Sean?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I would like the libs to tell us again how they can;t get their message out


PBS’s Moyers Disgracefully Rips Fox Owner Rupert Murdoch
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 30, 2007 - 12:06.
I’m not sure what derangement syndrome Bill Moyers is currently suffering from, but on Friday’s “Bill Moyers Journal” broadcast on PBS, the outspoken host went into an invective-filled tirade about media tycoon Rupert Murdoch that frankly was one of the most disgraceful exhibitions of liberal bias so far this year.

In his closing monologue, Moyers compared Murdoch to the Marquis de Sade, Imelda Marcos, and Satan himself.


If Rupert Murdoch were the Angel Gabriel, you still wouldn't want him owning the sun, the moon, and the stars. That's too much prime real estate for even the pure in heart.

But Rupert Murdoch is no saint; he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity. When it comes to money and power he's carnivorous: all appetite and no taste. He'll eat anything in his path. Politicians become little clay pigeons to be picked off with flattering headlines, generous air time, a book contract or the old-fashioned black jack that never misses: campaign cash. He hires lobbyists the way Imelda Marcos bought shoes, and stacks them in his cavernous closet, along with his conscience; this is the man, remember, who famously kowtowed to the Communist overlords of China, oppressors of their own people, to protect his investments there.

The ambitious can't resist his blandishments, Nor his power to get or keep them in office where they can return his favors. Mae West would be green with envy at his little black book of conquests. Tory Margaret Thatcher. Labor's Tony Blair. George Bush. Even Jimmy Carter couldn't say no.. now Bill and Hillary Clinton, who know which side of their bread is buttered, like having it slathered by their new buddy Rupert. Our media and political system has turned into a mutual protection racket.

You will not be surprised to learn that Murdoch's company paid little or no federal income tax over the past four years. His powerful portfolio positions him to claim a big stake in Yahoo and his takeover of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, now owned by the Bancroft family, which, like Adam and Eve, the parents of us all, are tempted to sell their birthright for a wormy apple.

Murdoch and THE JOURNAL's editorial page are made for each other. They've both pursued the right's corporate and political agenda of the past quarter century. Both venerate what THE JOURNAL editorials call the "animal spirits" of business. But THE JOURNAL's newsroom is another matter - there facts are sacred and independence revered. Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he'll not meddle with the reporting. But he's accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he turned the dogs of war loose in the newsrooms of his empire and they howled for blood. Murdoch himself said the greatest thing to come out of the war would be "$20 a barrel for oil."

Of course he wasn't the only media mogul to clamor for war. And he's not the first to use journalism to promote his own interests. His worst offense with Fox news is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he's made of its journalism. Fox news huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he's about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.

But the problem isn't just Rupert Murdoch. His pursuit of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is the latest in a cascading series of mergers, buy-outs, and other financial legerdemain that are making a shipwreck of journalism. Public minded newspapers are being dumped by their owners for wads of cash or crippled by cost cutting while their broadcasting cousins race to the bottom. Murdoch is just the predator of the hour. The modern maestro of a financial marketplace ruled by money and moguls. Instead of checking the excesses of private and public power, these 21st century barons of the first amendment revel in them; the public be damned.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13850
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top