next target of the left will be talk radio

[JakeStarkey]

The left is already prepared to revise the 1st Amendment with the ironically named "fairness doctrine" which is aimed at conservative talk radio. That's two down and eight to go.

Pseudo-conservative talk radio is completely frightend to air even the smallest amount of information that runs contrary to their daily talking points. Public airwaves should not be held hostage by a group of broadcasters who endlessly broadcast the same politcal perspective 24/7.

Oh the original 'Fairness Doctrine' was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

You dont listen to talk radio.....How can I tell you ask? Cause your statement is complete bullshit.

You nothing of the sort, stupid.

 

[thanatos144]

Pseudo-conservative talk radio is completely frightend to air even the smallest amount of information that runs contrary to their daily talking points. Public airwaves should not be held hostage by a group of broadcasters who endlessly broadcast the same politcal perspective 24/7.

Oh the original 'Fairness Doctrine' was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

You dont listen to talk radio.....How can I tell you ask? Cause your statement is complete bullshit.

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Because it curbs free speech .

 

[GoneBezerk]

JaketheFake back defending liberal scum because it is liberal scum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Generally, I agree with that, thanatos, but since free speech gets clogged with propaganda and $$$ during election time, I think a limited FD the last 90 days before election would help educate the electorate.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

If only Liberals could be heard.................lol

 

[Pogo]

You dont listen to talk radio.....How can I tell you ask? Cause your statement is complete bullshit.

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Because it curbs free speech .

Bzzt. I'm sorry, the correct answer is exactly the opposite; it required free speech. Thanks for playing. [edit: as is the following post]
But feel free to demonstrate your absurdity instead of plopping turds of empty ipse dixit.

JaketheFake back defending liberal scum because it is liberal scum.

Perfect example of Post 69. Thanks.

Still waiting on answer to post 37. Or Seawytch's same question in post 28. The silence is eloquent.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

 

[thanatos144]

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Because it curbs free speech .

Bzzt. I'm sorry, the correct answer is exactly the opposite; it required free speech. Thanks for playing.
But feel free to demonstrate your absurdity instead of plopping turds of empty ipse dixit.

JaketheFake back defending liberal scum because it is liberal scum.

Perfect example of Post 69. Thanks.

Still waiting on answer to post 37. Or Seawytch's same question in post 28. The silence is eloquent.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

So you dont like the truth and want to keep a lie going.....You are a sad little fascist.

 

[BlindBoo]

You dont listen to talk radio.....How can I tell you ask? Cause your statement is complete bullshit.

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Because it curbs free speech .

No it doesn't. In fact, it is the RW's Talk Show format that is curbing Free Speech according to the Supreme Court.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

 

[Harry Dresden]

who the **** cares about rush limbaugh, or michael savage? this last election opened up everyone's eyes as to exactly what we're dealing with. sure, conservative talk radio is like the machine that makes the retard soup, but there's plenty of retard soup to go around, and about 30 percent of the country just laps it up no matter what. it's fine; we'll just drag you fucknuts along kicking and screaming...like we always do.

but seriously, no one cares about limbaugh et. all. it is really fun to nitpick every dumb ******* thing he says because nothing he says actually stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever. but ya'all keep buying his coffee mugs anyway. kudos, fucktards. kudos.

its a lot higher than 30%.....

no, it's not. the latest polls show tea party support at just about 30%. if you think limbaugh speaks to non-tea party republicans, you are indeed mistaken. and nowhere near 30% of the country listens to his show anyway. his audience size would never come to close to that. 90 million people? pffffffffffffftttttttttttttt.

no its at least 40%.....20% are Far Right who dont give a **** about anyone but them and 20% are the Far Left who also dont give a **** about anyone but themselves.....these are the people who lap up whatever they are told by their "leaders" and fall in line.....no matter what.....

 

[Freemason9]

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Because it curbs free speech .

No it doesn't. In fact, it is the RW's Talk Show format that is curbing Free Speech according to the Supreme Court.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Thank You.

This is something that seems to be lost with the Republicans. They do NOT have the right to use public airwaves to promote their political party. That's what the Fairness Doctrine was all about; it was intended to assure that the public airwaves served a public interest. Reagan betrayed the nation when he allowed the free radio bands to be used as Republican propaganda vehicles.

Right now, the Republicans pay professional propagandists (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc.) to influence a demographic that listens often and votes frequently (old white men).

 

[BlindBoo]

Because it curbs free speech .

No it doesn't. In fact, it is the RW's Talk Show format that is curbing Free Speech according to the Supreme Court.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Thank You.

This is something that seems to be lost with the Republicans. They do NOT have the right to use public airwaves to promote their political party. That's what the Fairness Doctrine was all about; it was intended to assure that the public airwaves served a public interest. Reagan betrayed the nation when he allowed the free radio bands to be used as Republican propaganda vehicles.

Right now, the Republicans pay professional propagandists (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc.) to influence a demographic that listens often and votes frequently (old white men).

No, thank you. Somebody gets it.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

its a lot higher than 30%.....

no, it's not. the latest polls show tea party support at just about 30%. if you think limbaugh speaks to non-tea party republicans, you are indeed mistaken. and nowhere near 30% of the country listens to his show anyway. his audience size would never come to close to that. 90 million people? pffffffffffffftttttttttttttt.

no its at least 40%.....20% are Far Right who dont give a **** about anyone but them and 20% are the Far Left who also dont give a **** about anyone but themselves.....these are the people who lap up whatever they are told by their "leaders" and fall in line.....no matter what.....

psst. i was saying that rush limbaugh's audience isn't even close to 30% of the country. you've yet to prove it is. mkthxbye.

 

[Seawytch]

Pseudo-conservative talk radio is completely frightend to air even the smallest amount of information that runs contrary to their daily talking points. Public airwaves should not be held hostage by a group of broadcasters who endlessly broadcast the same politcal perspective 24/7.

Oh the original 'Fairness Doctrine' was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

You dont listen to talk radio.....How can I tell you ask? Cause your statement is complete bullshit.

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Showing both sides of an issue violates free speech of course.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Because it curbs free speech .

No it doesn't. In fact, it is the RW's Talk Show format that is curbing Free Speech according to the Supreme Court.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Terrible ruling by the court but with the massive amount of liberal interpretations of the constitution during that era of the court it is not surprising.
But it will fall and soon under the 2 (b) and (e) provision of this ruling.
The internet which has drastically improved technology is counter to the fairness doctrine's core argument of "this is a scarce resource". That core argument now is untrue.

First Amendment arguments are 100% correct in this argument as I agree that it is NOT the broadcasters that trump that right here as it is the viewers and listeners.

But media and one's ability to receive "fairness" is not hindered in any way today as one can easily go on the internet and reach tens of millions with their "each side must receive fair coverage" dinosaur of an argument.

Fairness Doctrine will fall flat on the next case. That is why we have not seen any lately.

 

[Gadawg73]

You dont listen to talk radio.....How can I tell you ask? Cause your statement is complete bullshit.

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Showing both sides of an issue violates free speech of course.

It doesn't.
But the Fairness Doctrine is based on the premise of "this scarce resource" when talking about broadcast media.
And that is dinosaur speak in the courts. Media is not scarce anymore. Far more people go on the internet than listen to a talk radio show.
The internet allows anyone and everyone to give their side of any issue at any time they want to.

 

[Zoom]

I love fox and its Saudi owned criteria.

 

[Seawytch]

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Showing both sides of an issue violates free speech of course.

It doesn't.
But the Fairness Doctrine is based on the premise of "this scarce resource" when talking about broadcast media.
And that is dinosaur speak in the courts. Media is not scarce anymore. Far more people go on the internet than listen to a talk radio show.
The internet allows anyone and everyone to give their side of any issue at any time they want to.

The radio airwaves, unlike television, is finite. Only X number of channels.

Don't bring back the fairness doctrine, bring back the Telecom Act that prohibited companies from owning more than 40 stations.

 

[JoeNormal]

Wanting to take conservative, hate radio off the air is a lot like wanting to take a knife away from a toddler.

 

[BlindBoo]

Because it curbs free speech .

No it doesn't. In fact, it is the RW's Talk Show format that is curbing Free Speech according to the Supreme Court.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Terrible ruling by the court but with the massive amount of liberal interpretations of the constitution during that era of the court it is not surprising.
But it will fall and soon under the 2 (b) and (e) provision of this ruling.
The internet which has drastically improved technology is counter to the fairness doctrine's core argument of "this is a scarce resource". That core argument now is untrue.

First Amendment arguments are 100% correct in this argument as I agree that it is NOT the broadcasters that trump that right here as it is the viewers and listeners.

But media and one's ability to receive "fairness" is not hindered in any way today as one can easily go on the internet and reach tens of millions with their "each side must receive fair coverage" dinosaur of an argument.

Fairness Doctrine will fall flat on the next case. That is why we have not seen any lately.

It only covered broadcast media. Not cable, not the internet.

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else. Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3-4/95). Some towns have two.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

The Fairness Doctrine ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

 

[BlindBoo]

Showing both sides of an issue violates free speech of course.

It doesn't.
But the Fairness Doctrine is based on the premise of "this scarce resource" when talking about broadcast media.
And that is dinosaur speak in the courts. Media is not scarce anymore. Far more people go on the internet than listen to a talk radio show.
The internet allows anyone and everyone to give their side of any issue at any time they want to.

The radio airwaves, unlike television, is finite. Only X number of channels.

Don't bring back the fairness doctrine, bring back the Telecom Act that prohibited companies from owning more than 40 stations.

Okay. I can agree with that. Also prohitbiting companies from owning more that one broadcast station in any give market.