The results of removing the Fairness Doctrine?

[JakeStarkey]

i can't believe anyone on the left would be whining about the fairness doctrine...the overall media is probably 90% left

there is so many different forms of media today, the fairness doctrine is no longer relevent. if you read the history of the fairness doctrine you would understand that. further, the fairness doctrine was not about stopping speech, so if anyone wanted to rant and rave, they still could.

If you think it is not relevant, then don't worry about it.

 

[uscitizen]

Think about this who started the anti-Farienss Doctrine movement?
Those who had the most to gain? Money and power wise?

I prefer not to be a tool of those seeking money and power.
I want all sides of the argument posted so each person can decide for themselves.

Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, my side and the truth.

 

[Defiant1]

Think about this who started the anti-Farienss Doctrine movement?
Those who had the most to gain? Money and power wise?

I prefer not to be a tool of those seeking money and power.
I want all sides of the argument posted so each person can decide for themselves.

Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, my side and the truth.

In other words you want to control what I watch, read, or listen to.

 

[uscitizen]

Think about this who started the anti-Farienss Doctrine movement?
Those who had the most to gain? Money and power wise?

I prefer not to be a tool of those seeking money and power.
I want all sides of the argument posted so each person can decide for themselves.

Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, my side and the truth.

In other words you want to control what I watch, read, or listen to.

Nope you have a remote control, I just want all sides to be available to all.
If it falls under the guise of news or political commentary.

Personally I would prefer that only news be presented with no political commentary allowed. But that is just my personal preference. I like to make my on conclusions/decisions based on facts not slanted hype.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

balancing speech not restricting it.
You do understand how the fairness doctrine worked don't you?

Requiring me, as the owner of a radio station, to give equal time to opposing points of view, restricts the amount of time I can be talking. The fairness doctrine would not even allow me to buy the guy his own radio station and let him use it to say whatever he wanted, I would have to give up my speaking time.

Which one of us does not understand how the fairness doctrine works, and that it really restricts speech?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I will never understand why some Americans perfer their news lie to them

I really wanted to give a witty reply to this, but I cannot think of anything that is nearly as witty as what TM said. The only thing I can think of is the scene in Showtime where Shatner commented on Deniro's acting.

Showtime The Worst Actor I've Ever Seen - MovieWeb.com

 

[uscitizen]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

balancing speech not restricting it.
You do understand how the fairness doctrine worked don't you?

Requiring me, as the owner of a radio station, to give equal time to opposing points of view, restricts the amount of time I can be talking. The fairness doctrine would not even allow me to buy the guy his own radio station and let him use it to say whatever he wanted, I would have to give up my speaking time.

Which one of us does not understand how the fairness doctrine works, and that it really restricts speech?

I guess radio stations did not make any money before the fairness doctrine was repealed?
Strange that we had so many of them.
It also applied to broadcast TV.
I guess they made no money before it was repealed either?

 

[Defiant1]

Think about this who started the anti-Farienss Doctrine movement?
Those who had the most to gain? Money and power wise?

I prefer not to be a tool of those seeking money and power.
I want all sides of the argument posted so each person can decide for themselves.

Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, my side and the truth.

In other words you want to control what I watch, read, or listen to.

Nope you have a remote control, I just want all sides to be available to all.
If it falls under the guise of news or political commentary.

Personally I would prefer that only news be presented with no political commentary allowed. But that is just my personal preference. I like to make my on conclusions/decisions based on facts not slanted hype.

Your dishonesty is insulting. Please explain how all sides are not available to all presently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

balancing speech not restricting it.
You do understand how the fairness doctrine worked don't you?

Requiring me, as the owner of a radio station, to give equal time to opposing points of view, restricts the amount of time I can be talking. The fairness doctrine would not even allow me to buy the guy his own radio station and let him use it to say whatever he wanted, I would have to give up my speaking time.

Which one of us does not understand how the fairness doctrine works, and that it really restricts speech?

I guess radio stations did not make any money before the fairness doctrine was repealed?
Strange that we had so many of them.
It also applied to broadcast TV.
I guess they made no money before it was repealed either?

What does any of that have to do with how the fairness doctrine worked?

 

[loosecannon]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

balancing speech not restricting it.
You do understand how the fairness doctrine worked don't you?

Requiring me, as the owner of a radio station, to give equal time to opposing points of view, restricts the amount of time I can be talking. The fairness doctrine would not even allow me to buy the guy his own radio station and let him use it to say whatever he wanted, I would have to give up my speaking time.

Which one of us does not understand how the fairness doctrine works, and that it really restricts speech?

and on the other hand granting you, as a radio station owner, special rights to operate over a proprietary airwave commands certain reciprocal obligations. As do all licensing agreements.

Requiring people to offer all sides in a news broadcast is important for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that a lot of people assume that if it is reported as news it is therefore true.

As a news venue it is then reasonable for you post a disclaimer expressly stating that your news isn't true, or to hold yourself to some kind of standard of veracity.

Requiring that all sides be presented is a clever way to achieve a valid goal without imposing standards for veracity. It's a self regulating mechanism.

 

[loosecannon]

Your dishonesty is insulting. Please explain how all sides are not available to all presently.

You are kidding right?

How many news outlets reported that Iraq had no WMD before the Iraq war?

How many reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11? Or that the Saudis were sponsors of the 9/11 terrorists?

 

[Oddball]

balancing speech not restricting it.
You do understand how the fairness doctrine worked don't you?

Requiring me, as the owner of a radio station, to give equal time to opposing points of view, restricts the amount of time I can be talking. The fairness doctrine would not even allow me to buy the guy his own radio station and let him use it to say whatever he wanted, I would have to give up my speaking time.

Which one of us does not understand how the fairness doctrine works, and that it really restricts speech?

and on the other hand granting you, as a radio station owner, special rights to operate over a proprietary airwave commands certain reciprocal obligations. As do all licensing agreements.

Requiring people to offer all sides in a news broadcast is important for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that a lot of people assume that if it is reported as news it is therefore true.

As a news venue it is then reasonable for you post a disclaimer expressly stating that your news isn't true, or to hold yourself to some kind of standard of veracity.

Requiring that all sides be presented is a clever way to achieve a valid goal without imposing standards for veracity. It's a self regulating mechanism.

That's where you're Hegelian presumption falls flat on its face.

All sides don't need to be presented, only on "alternative" viewpoint is necessary....This presumes that POV as the only legitimate "alternative", insofar as the broadcast in question is concerned.

Besides, if it's so "self-regulating" why does it need to be imposed?

 

[Defiant1]

Your dishonesty is insulting. Please explain how all sides are not available to all presently.

You are kidding right?

How many news outlets reported that Iraq had no WMD before the Iraq war?

How many reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11? Or that the Saudis were sponsors of the 9/11 terrorists?

And how Bush and Cheney installed the explosives in the Twin Towers while Condi and Rumsfeld created the holographs of planes flying into the buildings.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and on the other hand granting you, as a radio station owner, special rights to operate over a proprietary airwave commands certain reciprocal obligations. As do all licensing agreements.

Requiring people to offer all sides in a news broadcast is important for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that a lot of people assume that if it is reported as news it is therefore true.

As a news venue it is then reasonable for you post a disclaimer expressly stating that your news isn't true, or to hold yourself to some kind of standard of veracity.

Requiring that all sides be presented is a clever way to achieve a valid goal without imposing standards for veracity. It's a self regulating mechanism.

That must be why we still have the fairness doctrine, because it made so much sense.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Think about this who started the anti-Farienss Doctrine movement?
Those who had the most to gain? Money and power wise?

I prefer not to be a tool of those seeking money and power.
I want all sides of the argument posted so each person can decide for themselves.

Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, my side and the truth.

You have Fox News and you have MSNBC. Sounds like all sides are presented to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

and on the other hand granting you, as a radio station owner, special rights to operate over a proprietary airwave commands certain reciprocal obligations. As do all licensing agreements.

Requiring people to offer all sides in a news broadcast is important for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that a lot of people assume that if it is reported as news it is therefore true.

As a news venue it is then reasonable for you post a disclaimer expressly stating that your news isn't true, or to hold yourself to some kind of standard of veracity.

Requiring that all sides be presented is a clever way to achieve a valid goal without imposing standards for veracity. It's a self regulating mechanism.

That must be why we still have the fairness doctrine, because it made so much sense.

An insulting comment. We all know why the fairness doctrine was removed. A certain far right group could not stand being outed on the airwaves.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yep those intrepretationistic justices who call radio "the press"?

The press was the only media in those days, therefore it is logical and reasonable to conclude they were referring to all the media, which now includes several variations that had not yet been invented in their day.

Sorry, I thought that was more than obvious to anyone with more than a third grade education. My bad.

 

[Oddball]

An insulting comment. We all know why the fairness doctrine was removed. A certain far right group could not stand being outed on the airwaves.

You're right...That is an insulting comment.

 

[loosecannon]

Requiring me, as the owner of a radio station, to give equal time to opposing points of view, restricts the amount of time I can be talking. The fairness doctrine would not even allow me to buy the guy his own radio station and let him use it to say whatever he wanted, I would have to give up my speaking time.

Which one of us does not understand how the fairness doctrine works, and that it really restricts speech?

and on the other hand granting you, as a radio station owner, special rights to operate over a proprietary airwave commands certain reciprocal obligations. As do all licensing agreements.

Requiring people to offer all sides in a news broadcast is important for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that a lot of people assume that if it is reported as news it is therefore true.

As a news venue it is then reasonable for you post a disclaimer expressly stating that your news isn't true, or to hold yourself to some kind of standard of veracity.

Requiring that all sides be presented is a clever way to achieve a valid goal without imposing standards for veracity. It's a self regulating mechanism.

That's where you're Hegelian presumption falls flat on its face.

All sides don't need to be presented, only on "alternative" viewpoint is necessary....This presumes that POV as the only legitimate "alternative", insofar as the broadcast in question is concerned.

Besides, if it's so "self-regulating" why does it need to be imposed?

It's like the honor system, you have to have a rule before anybody can be expected to abide by it.

And the Hegelian dichotomy isn't mine. I mentioned that several times already.

 

[loosecannon]

and on the other hand granting you, as a radio station owner, special rights to operate over a proprietary airwave commands certain reciprocal obligations. As do all licensing agreements.

Requiring people to offer all sides in a news broadcast is important for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that a lot of people assume that if it is reported as news it is therefore true.

As a news venue it is then reasonable for you post a disclaimer expressly stating that your news isn't true, or to hold yourself to some kind of standard of veracity.

Requiring that all sides be presented is a clever way to achieve a valid goal without imposing standards for veracity. It's a self regulating mechanism.

That must be why we still have the fairness doctrine, because it made so much sense.

Yeah that's why we still have the Federal Reserve too, after 97 years it still makes so much sense to pay interest on our own money.