The results of removing the Fairness Doctrine?

[Intense]

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.

I think Jake has caught a case of Beltway Think. Nothing else explains it. He has all the symptoms, Stuttering, sputtering, frequent urination, mumbling, bumbling, Incontinence, Gas, Hallucinations, the munchies, incoherence.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Doesnt take much to expose who the nazis are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

I think Jake has caught a case of Beltway Think. Nothing else explains it. He has all the symptoms, Stuttering, sputtering, frequent urination, mumbling, bumbling, Incontinence, Gas, Hallucinations, the munchies, incoherence.

Can't answer it, huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesnt take much to expose who the nazis are.

What a self-revealing comment, Mr. Fitnah. Good for you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

all sides are presented. You just don't like the conditions that exist today where conservative talk radio dominates the AM dial.
If you want news, watch/ listen to the news. If you want to hear/watch liberal commentary, find those outlets. They are certainly available.
This fairness issue is based solely on the whining by the Left that their agenda is not as popular. Those on the Left feel( there's that word again) they are getting short shrift from radio.
Look, the Left has outlets and some have gone away because of low numbers.
Radio does not exist as an entitlement or in a welfare mode.
At the end of the day, it is the fault of liberals for the disappearance of liberal talk radio from the airwaves. If libs had done their duty and listened in, liberal talk programs would still be in business.

 

[mdn2000]

Lies and hate, great examples right here in this thread, lets assume human nature is the same everywhere we go, I have to say by the human nature on display here the Liberals have proved who they are, see one liberal tell another liberal to knock off the trolling, the insults, the lies. Of course not, its all a matter of who the insults, lies, and hate is directed at.

So here we have an example of the Liberals being guilty of what they accuse Conservatives of.

Human nature must be considered equal, on the internet or the internet. It took a lot of trolling here to get the first person to tell you off.

Great example of whats wrong in the good ole USA.

 

[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.

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.

So?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You're grasping at straws and muddying the waters.
The FCC requires radio and tv stations to follow the rules of decency and operate in the public interest.
There are few other requirements.
Some examples.....To identify themselves within 10 minutes of the top of every hour by call letters and city of license.
To offer public commentary or allow time for public commentary.
To air public service messages and programming.
To insure no obscene or offensive content is permitted.
Other than these basic requirements there are few rules and regulations.
Oh, when political candidates are interviewed, stations are required by law to give equal time to campaign opponents. Exception....If candidate "A" is given time, Candidate "B" must be "offered" equal time. If candidate "B" does not exercise their right to be heard, that is his/her choice.
If an editorial segment is aired by a non-employee, the station has the right to offer an opposing viewpoint. The reverse also applies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lies and hate, great examples right here in this thread, lets assume human nature is the same everywhere we go, I have to say by the human nature on display here the Liberals have proved who they are, see one liberal tell another liberal to knock off the trolling, the insults, the lies. Of course not, its all a matter of who the insults, lies, and hate is directed at.

So here we have an example of the Liberals being guilty of what they accuse Conservatives of.

Human nature must be considered equal, on the internet or the internet. It took a lot of trolling here to get the first person to tell you off.

Great example of whats wrong in the good ole USA.

Your post proves you are loony.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I think Jake has caught a case of Beltway Think. Nothing else explains it. He has all the symptoms, Stuttering, sputtering, frequent urination, mumbling, bumbling, Incontinence, Gas, Hallucinations, the munchies, incoherence.

Not to mention back ache and sexual side affects.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

So you are using communist dialectics to argue this? How rich!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

I think Jake has caught a case of Beltway Think. Nothing else explains it. He has all the symptoms, Stuttering, sputtering, frequent urination, mumbling, bumbling, Incontinence, Gas, Hallucinations, the munchies, incoherence.

Not to mention back ache and sexual side affects.

You have nothing more than Intense? The insults are the last of a failing defense.

 

[mdn2000]

Lies and hate, great examples right here in this thread, lets assume human nature is the same everywhere we go, I have to say by the human nature on display here the Liberals have proved who they are, see one liberal tell another liberal to knock off the trolling, the insults, the lies. Of course not, its all a matter of who the insults, lies, and hate is directed at.

So here we have an example of the Liberals being guilty of what they accuse Conservatives of.

Human nature must be considered equal, on the internet or the internet. It took a lot of trolling here to get the first person to tell you off.

Great example of whats wrong in the good ole USA.

Your post proves you are loony.

Your post proves your loony.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, mdn2000.

 

[mdn2000]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, mdn2000.

I disagree but that is another thread and I have not the time.

Which far right wing group was afraid of being outed?

 

[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.

You're grasping at straws and muddying the waters.
The FCC requires radio and tv stations to follow the rules of decency and operate in the public interest.
There are few other requirements.
Some examples.....To identify themselves within 10 minutes of the top of every hour by call letters and city of license.
To offer public commentary or allow time for public commentary.
To air public service messages and programming.
To insure no obscene or offensive content is permitted.
Other than these basic requirements there are few rules and regulations.
Oh, when political candidates are interviewed, stations are required by law to give equal time to campaign opponents. Exception....If candidate "A" is given time, Candidate "B" must be "offered" equal time. If candidate "B" does not exercise their right to be heard, that is his/her choice.
If an editorial segment is aired by a non-employee, the station has the right to offer an opposing viewpoint. The reverse also applies.

Thanks for demonstrating that I am in no way grasping at straws.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You're grasping at straws and muddying the waters.
The FCC requires radio and tv stations to follow the rules of decency and operate in the public interest.
There are few other requirements.
Some examples.....To identify themselves within 10 minutes of the top of every hour by call letters and city of license.
To offer public commentary or allow time for public commentary.
To air public service messages and programming.
To insure no obscene or offensive content is permitted.
Other than these basic requirements there are few rules and regulations.
Oh, when political candidates are interviewed, stations are required by law to give equal time to campaign opponents. Exception....If candidate "A" is given time, Candidate "B" must be "offered" equal time. If candidate "B" does not exercise their right to be heard, that is his/her choice.
If an editorial segment is aired by a non-employee, the station has the right to offer an opposing viewpoint. The reverse also applies.

Thanks for demonstrating that I am in no way grasping at straws.

No. You are insisting ( or wishing) that presenting both sides of an issue is one of those requirements.
That is not true.
I posted the basics to indicate your assertion is incorrect.
You may think radio and tv stations have a responsibility to present both sides of an issue, but they do not.
Look, you're not going to get your way unless government either takes control of the airwaves and tightly regulates content. That is not going to happen.
Passage of any kind of fairness doctrine is politically unpalatable. At this time with so many (23 to be exact) vulnerable Senate seats now in the hands of Democrats.
Passage of such an objectionable piece of legislation is a sure fire way for a democrat politician to become an ex-politician.
So your side can whimper and whine about how unfair and miserable the radio world is and that and 50 cents will get you a pay call. Case closed.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Just watch, read or listen to foreign news reports and you will learn.
PBS news also helps.

Dishonesty?

 

[loosecannon]

You're grasping at straws and muddying the waters.
The FCC requires radio and tv stations to follow the rules of decency and operate in the public interest.
There are few other requirements.
Some examples.....To identify themselves within 10 minutes of the top of every hour by call letters and city of license.
To offer public commentary or allow time for public commentary.
To air public service messages and programming.
To insure no obscene or offensive content is permitted.
Other than these basic requirements there are few rules and regulations.
Oh, when political candidates are interviewed, stations are required by law to give equal time to campaign opponents. Exception....If candidate "A" is given time, Candidate "B" must be "offered" equal time. If candidate "B" does not exercise their right to be heard, that is his/her choice.
If an editorial segment is aired by a non-employee, the station has the right to offer an opposing viewpoint. The reverse also applies.

Thanks for demonstrating that I am in no way grasping at straws.

No. You are insisting ( or wishing) that presenting both sides of an issue is one of those requirements.
That is not true.
I posted the basics to indicate your assertion is incorrect.
You may think radio and tv stations have a responsibility to present both sides of an issue, but they do not.
Look, you're not going to get your way unless government either takes control of the airwaves and tightly regulates content. That is not going to happen.
Passage of any kind of fairness doctrine is politically unpalatable. At this time with so many (23 to be exact) vulnerable Senate seats now in the hands of Democrats.
Passage of such an objectionable piece of legislation is a sure fire way for a democrat politician to become an ex-politician.
So your side can whimper and whine about how unfair and miserable the radio world is and that and 50 cents will get you a pay call. Case closed.

flush

 

[Intense]

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

I think Jake has caught a case of Beltway Think. Nothing else explains it. He has all the symptoms, Stuttering, sputtering, frequent urination, mumbling, bumbling, Incontinence, Gas, Hallucinations, the munchies, incoherence.

Can't answer it, huh?

Sorry Jake, just catching up, busy evening.

“ A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio 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.[2] ”

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):

“Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia