next target of the left will be talk radio

[edthecynic]

Yeah....he only has a $100M radio contract and is constantly talked about by you scum in politics and on talk TV shows.....but you think he is irrelevant, because you are irrelvant.

You have no idea what his contract is, he never revealed it, only the number of years it ran, and he mocks anyone who speculates on what it was. The only thing he said at the time of his contract other than the length was that it was a cut.

July 2, 2008
RUSH: For the most part, what you've read about my contract is true, but I want to say a couple things: It's actually a pay cut

 

[Pogo]

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.

Where in the Fairness Doctrine ruling does it narrow it's spectrum of media to radio airwaves?
Both Acts you quote are dinosaurs and over 50 years old.
Surely you do not want current information age law to hold precedent that is outdated not only in technology but in every other way also.
The Fairness Doctrine in today's information age is a lie and has no merit whatsoever.
I am open to any and all current case law to prove otherwise.

Uh-- Bilko, have you been following what we're talking about at all?

The Fairness Doctrine was always about broadcasting, and only broadcasting.

"The hearing had been ordered on the Commission's own motion on September 5, 1947, because of our belief that further clarification of the Commissioner's position with respect to the obligations of broadcast licensees in the field of broadcasts of news, commentary and opinion was advisable."

Full text here

It's usually a good idea to know what you're talking about before going in.

 

[Pogo]

If only you thugs could do something about the internet, you might be able to get back to the Edward Murrow days, where ONLY party approved news made it on the airwaves...

This is where it would have paid to read the thread. I noted waaaaay back there (first post) that when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his famous "A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy", the Wisconsin Senator was given air time to respond under the Fairness Doctrine, and got the entire show three weeks later. You would also have read that McCarthy himself was a key figure in establishing the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

So much for the "approved news"...

How much did the sponsors pay when Tailgunner got "the entire show?"
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH
Look to your left.........................

This and your prior post make no sense whatsoever...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZwVCjhq3YI]Star Trek - Nomad says "Non Sequitur" a few times - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Where in the Fairness Doctrine ruling does it narrow it's spectrum of media to radio airwaves?
Both Acts you quote are dinosaurs and over 50 years old.
Surely you do not want current information age law to hold precedent that is outdated not only in technology but in every other way also.
The Fairness Doctrine in today's information age is a lie and has no merit whatsoever.
I am open to any and all current case law to prove otherwise.

Uh-- Bilko, have you been following what we're talking about at all?

The Fairness Doctrine was always about broadcasting, and only broadcasting.

"The hearing had been ordered on the Commission's own motion on September 5, 1947, because of our belief that further clarification of the Commissioner's position with respect to the obligations of broadcast licensees in the field of broadcasts of news, commentary and opinion was advisable."

Full text here

It's usually a good idea to know what you're talking about before going in.

Of course it was. There was NO internet that long ago.
There is now. Do you even read the ruling on the "scarce resources" part?
They claimed that media with broadcasting as the ONLY medium for listening was scarce.

You can broadcast all you WANT ON THE INTERNET.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How much did the sponsors pay when Tailgunner got "the entire show?" WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH
Look to your left.........................

Who got to talk the entire show? Put that in context with who got the advertisement dollars proves just truly how valuable was the Fairness Doctrine.

The American people got to hear both sides.

Should this be applied to the political web sites?

 

[Gadawg73]

1947 is dinosaur law.
For DECADES US broadcast policy held inviolate the notion of forced message parity.
Because it is censorship in reverse.
The Reagan administration repealed The Fairness Doctrine and now we have Democrats that can not keep one of their team on the air because no one wants to listen to them they want to bring back that phoenix from the ashes and prop it up again.
FCC ruled in 1985 that Fairness Doctrine was no longer achieving its intended effect, BUT ACTUALLY CHILLLED FREE SPEECH on controversial issues and unduly interfered with freedom of the press.
August 4, 1987 the FCC officially repealed The Fairness Doctrine. An appeals court backed that up and ruled that the ONLY thing the FD did was "serve the public interest". NOTHING ELSE.
Why? The courts clarified the Red Lion case ON THE MERITS OF THE LAW and explicitly declared in their ruling that The Fairness Doctrine was:
1. NOT MANDATED BY CONGRESS
2. THE FCC WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE IT

Following that, ONCE AGAIN FOR THE UNINFORMED HERE:

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WAS REPEALED ON AUGUST 4, 1987.

 

[Pogo]

Bilko, you haven't read a damn thing in this thread. I posted all that at the beginning. Stop wasting our time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1947 is dinosaur law.
For DECADES US broadcast policy held inviolate the notion of forced message parity.
Because it is censorship in reverse.
The Reagan administration repealed The Fairness Doctrine and now we have Democrats that can not keep one of their team on the air because no one wants to listen to them they want to bring back that phoenix from the ashes and prop it up again.
FCC ruled in 1985 that Fairness Doctrine was no longer achieving its intended effect, BUT ACTUALLY CHILLLED FREE SPEECH on controversial issues and unduly interfered with freedom of the press.
August 4, 1987 the FCC officially repealed The Fairness Doctrine. An appeals court backed that up and ruled that the ONLY thing the FD did was "serve the public interest". NOTHING ELSE.
Why? The courts clarified the Red Lion case ON THE MERITS OF THE LAW and explicitly declared in their ruling that The Fairness Doctrine was:
1. NOT MANDATED BY CONGRESS
2. THE FCC WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE IT

Following that, ONCE AGAIN FOR THE UNINFORMED HERE:

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WAS REPEALED ON AUGUST 4, 1987.

doesn't matter at all to your argument

 

[Gadawg73]

Bilko, you haven't read a damn thing in this thread. I posted all that at the beginning. Stop wasting our time.

I read it but you did not cite the rulings of the court anywhere.
NO where.
You just can not stand any other information or facts that do not jive with your biased ideology.

 

[Gadawg73]

1947 is dinosaur law.
For DECADES US broadcast policy held inviolate the notion of forced message parity.
Because it is censorship in reverse.
The Reagan administration repealed The Fairness Doctrine and now we have Democrats that can not keep one of their team on the air because no one wants to listen to them they want to bring back that phoenix from the ashes and prop it up again.
FCC ruled in 1985 that Fairness Doctrine was no longer achieving its intended effect, BUT ACTUALLY CHILLLED FREE SPEECH on controversial issues and unduly interfered with freedom of the press.
August 4, 1987 the FCC officially repealed The Fairness Doctrine. An appeals court backed that up and ruled that the ONLY thing the FD did was "serve the public interest". NOTHING ELSE.
Why? The courts clarified the Red Lion case ON THE MERITS OF THE LAW and explicitly declared in their ruling that The Fairness Doctrine was:
1. NOT MANDATED BY CONGRESS
2. THE FCC WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE IT

Following that, ONCE AGAIN FOR THE UNINFORMED HERE:

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WAS REPEALED ON AUGUST 4, 1987.

doesn't matter at all to your argument

The courts rulings are valid to my argument.
They upheld the FCC repealing the Fairness Doctrine.
Because it wasn't fair at all.

 

[Gadawg73]

Pogo claimed that the Fairness Doctrine "ensured" something.
The courts clearly ruled that never happened in most instances as all it did was push censorship in reverse.
Hostile Media Perception, which is obvious here, posits that as individuals increase in levels of partisanship, they also increase in the perception that the media is hostile towards their group or position.
And that is the only leg that supporters of the Fairness Doctrine have ever stood on and it is based on their own bias, nothing about "fairness".
One would think that the Fairness Doctrine would kill 2 birds with one stone, actual media bias and self selective exposure to what is aired. By forcing media to cover both sides of the story both of those problems would be solved.
Only to the naive and gullible.
Hostile Media Perception totally undermines this faulty claim.
As indicated here viewers already have attached their own ideological slants to certain media outlets, (FOX is for conservative slant and CNN is for liberal slant) which biases their perception of the media content produced by that media outlet.
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CONTENT IS NEUTRAL OR NOT.
And the courts have held to that.
Nothing to do about Reagan, his cronies or Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is where it would have paid to read the thread. I noted waaaaay back there (first post) that when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his famous "A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy", the Wisconsin Senator was given air time to respond under the Fairness Doctrine, and got the entire show three weeks later. You would also have read that McCarthy himself was a key figure in establishing the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

So much for the "approved news"...

Murrow was the virtual propaganda czar, appointed by the democratic party to approve of news and ensure that ONLY that which served the party ever saw the airwaves. That McCarthy was given a 15 minute slot to rebut 80,000 hours of party propaganda against him, is hardly an example of "fair" reporting.

You of the extreme left have no shortage of opinion and information. MSNBC exists for no other reason than to spread propaganda for the party.

Your concern isn't "equal time," leftist opinion in the media holds a 70 to 1 advantage over conservative thought. You seek to silence dissent, as is the overarching goal of the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The ultra radical fascist thugs like Uncensored believe in only "fairness" for their warped view of America.

Khmer Rouge thugs like Jakematters are programmed to demand that "fairness" can only be served by silencing dissenting voices.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have no idea what his contract is, he never revealed it, only the number of years it ran, and he mocks anyone who speculates on what it was. The only thing he said at the time of his contract other than the length was that it was a cut.

July 2, 2008
RUSH: For the most part, what you've read about my contract is true, but I want to say a couple things: It's actually a pay cut

If you frothing at the mouth Bolsheviks ever stopped listening to Rush, he'd lose 3/4th's of his audience.

 

[BlindBoo]

1947 is dinosaur law.
For DECADES US broadcast policy held inviolate the notion of forced message parity.
Because it is censorship in reverse.
The Reagan administration repealed The Fairness Doctrine and now we have Democrats that can not keep one of their team on the air because no one wants to listen to them they want to bring back that phoenix from the ashes and prop it up again.
FCC ruled in 1985 that Fairness Doctrine was no longer achieving its intended effect, BUT ACTUALLY CHILLLED FREE SPEECH on controversial issues and unduly interfered with freedom of the press.
August 4, 1987 the FCC officially repealed The Fairness Doctrine. An appeals court backed that up and ruled that the ONLY thing the FD did was "serve the public interest". NOTHING ELSE.
Why? The courts clarified the Red Lion case ON THE MERITS OF THE LAW and explicitly declared in their ruling that The Fairness Doctrine was:
1. NOT MANDATED BY CONGRESS
2. THE FCC WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE IT

Following that, ONCE AGAIN FOR THE UNINFORMED HERE:

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WAS REPEALED ON AUGUST 4, 1987.

Interesting to note that serving the public interest is a bad thing to the pseudo-cons. Oh and the FCC could just as easily bring the rule back if they so choose. However the President has said repeatedly that is not his intention.

 

[Pogo]

Bilko, you haven't read a damn thing in this thread. I posted all that at the beginning. Stop wasting our time.

I read it but you did not cite the rulings of the court anywhere.
NO where.
You just can not stand any other information or facts that do not jive with your biased ideology.

Go back to Post #6 on the first day, genius. First post I made here.

What the **** clue would you have about my "biased ideology"?? You can't even read the thread.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interesting to note that serving the public interest is a bad thing to the pseudo-cons. Oh and the FCC could just as easily bring the rule back if they so choose. However the President has said repeatedly that is not his intention.

Yes, Bolsheviks seeking to silence dissenting views is "serving the public interests.." Provided of course, that the "public" is merely and adjunct of the party.

In 1949, most communities in America had a single TV station, Columbia being the largest. Today, the average community in America has access to 6,000 television broadcasts, and millions more on the internet. So overwhelming are the number of channels that there are stations deducted to only fishing, or only sewing.

The reason you Khmer Rouge types squirt cum at the thought of the "fairness doctrine" it that it wouldn't affect the party propaganda efforts. MSNBC, a managed news and disinformation channel dedicated to the democratic party, would not be affected by the rule, since they are a cable channel and not transmitted on the airwaves. Even party controlled media such as NBC, CBS, and ABC could quickly change their national disinformation segments to cable only, since all of them are duel media, and avoid the fairness doctrine.

Which means the ruling would ONLY affect radio. Since conservatives are made up of the middle class, they are the ones in their cars, on the freeway going to work each day. Radio caters to those who work, ergo conservatives. Thus the goal here is to silence conservative thought and commentary, leaving television, which caters during the day to those who are either in the elite and don't work, or on government assistance, and don't work - ergo the left, free from any restriction.

Obviously you of the left think this ham-handed nonsense is really clever..

So tell me Comrade, what if you had your way and outlawed conservative thought and talk on the broadcast airwaves? What is to stop Limbaugh, Beck, Reagan, Elder, Etc. from simply forming a satellite network like Sirius and sidestepping your censorship effort?

 

[Pogo]

1947 is dinosaur law.
For DECADES US broadcast policy held inviolate the notion of forced message parity.
Because it is censorship in reverse.
The Reagan administration repealed The Fairness Doctrine and now we have Democrats that can not keep one of their team on the air because no one wants to listen to them they want to bring back that phoenix from the ashes and prop it up again.
FCC ruled in 1985 that Fairness Doctrine was no longer achieving its intended effect, BUT ACTUALLY CHILLLED FREE SPEECH on controversial issues and unduly interfered with freedom of the press.
August 4, 1987 the FCC officially repealed The Fairness Doctrine. An appeals court backed that up and ruled that the ONLY thing the FD did was "serve the public interest". NOTHING ELSE.
Why? The courts clarified the Red Lion case ON THE MERITS OF THE LAW and explicitly declared in their ruling that The Fairness Doctrine was:
1. NOT MANDATED BY CONGRESS
2. THE FCC WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE IT

Following that, ONCE AGAIN FOR THE UNINFORMED HERE:

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WAS REPEALED ON AUGUST 4, 1987.

doesn't matter at all to your argument

The courts rulings are valid to my argument.
They upheld the FCC repealing the Fairness Doctrine.
Because it wasn't fair at all.

The FD was a doctrine of the FCC; they abolished it by themselves.
Are you new to English?

 

[Pogo]

This is where it would have paid to read the thread. I noted waaaaay back there (first post) that when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his famous "A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy", the Wisconsin Senator was given air time to respond under the Fairness Doctrine, and got the entire show three weeks later. You would also have read that McCarthy himself was a key figure in establishing the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

So much for the "approved news"...

Murrow was the virtual propaganda czar, appointed by the democratic party to approve of news and ensure that ONLY that which served the party ever saw the airwaves. That McCarthy was given a 15 minute slot to rebut 80,000 hours of party propaganda against him, is hardly an example of "fair" reporting.

You of the extreme left have no shortage of opinion and information. MSNBC exists for no other reason than to spread propaganda for the party.

Your concern isn't "equal time," leftist opinion in the media holds a 70 to 1 advantage over conservative thought. You seek to silence dissent, as is the overarching goal of the left.

McCarthy was given his time to answer Murrow. Specifically. If Joe Bloggs on KRAP had had another program critical of McCarthy, then McCarthy would get time on KRAP. This isn't rocket surgery. Without the FD in place, Murrow, Bloggs and anyone else go on the air and trash McCarthy and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. Had your ilk a clue of what you're talking about, you could not engage in this transparent Doublethink bullshit. You're not convincing anyone but each other, as it defies all logic.

Assuring ability to respond is "silencing dissent".
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
and of course your cardinal Rule One:
Ignorance is Strength.

 

[Pogo]

Your concern isn't "equal time," leftist opinion in the media holds a 70 to 1 advantage over conservative thought. You seek to silence dissent, as is the overarching goal of the left.

Speaking of that, I'm still waiting for the answer to post 37. And Seawytch's post 28, which asked the same question. It's been days and you guys are still emptyhanded. Because you have no basis.

This Doublethink bullshit is a rhetorical onanism. Screaming "the sky is green" all day won't make it not-blue. Just makes y'all look more stupid.