What do Rightwingers think of the left's hatred of Fox News?

[BorisTheAnimal]

Folks, it all started when in 1987, President Ronald Wilson Reagan put the kibosh on the so-called "fairness doctrine" that released the stranglehold on the media by the left. No more was the Left allowed to monopolize the media. This is why they scream about any opposition to their template and agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with what content you could put on the air. Fact.

That's BS and you know it. The "Fairness" doctrine was the Left's way of controlling content on the air and in print. FACT!!!

 

[Pogo]

Folks, it all started when in 1987, President Ronald Wilson Reagan put the kibosh on the so-called "fairness doctrine" that released the stranglehold on the media by the left. No more was the Left allowed to monopolize the media. This is why they scream about any opposition to their template and agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with what content you could put on the air. Fact.

That's BS and you know it. The "Fairness" doctrine was the Left's way of controlling content on the air and in print. FACT!!!

No, I was in the business both before and after the FD was in place and it was my job to know this shit. And you're full of it. And btw the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything whatsoever to do with print, ever in the history of the universe. So you're pulling that out of your ass too.

Again, feel free to prove it. Failing that, you're a liar.

 

[Warrior102]

You Libberhoid turds wear "Brown Shirts" and march goose-step in support of your Fuehrer Barry Sotereo - so what if someone wants to wear a swastika.

Bitches.

 

[American Horse]

The left throws out all these accusations against "Fox News"...
What exactly do they mean.
Which show offends them the most?
Fox and Friends.
Neil Cavuto.
Magen Kelly
Bill O'Reilly
Brett Baier.
Sean Hannity
Gretta Van Sustern

Specifics please.

Brett isn't bad. Chris Wallace has a voice of reason. O'Reilly is okay in moderation.

Hannity and the trolls of Fox and Friends are just puppets of the network.

From what you say you don't understand the difference between hard news and opinion. Brett Baier and Chris Wallace are hard news reporters. The others mentioned above present opinion programs.

But don't feel all alone. Hardly anyone on the left understands the difference between hard news and opinion pieces.

The Reason?

About all the mainstream media doesn't actually report hard news, only news reports laced with opinion so it becomes normal to view news reporting as opinions, and opinions viewed through the filter opinion is seen as news.

 

[HenryBHough]

That's BS and you know it. The "Fairness" doctrine was the Left's way of controlling content on the air and in print. FACT!!!

Actually the intent at the time was somewhat justified by scarcity of the means of expressing points of view. When the number of broadcast licenses was very small a dominant station could demonize and shut out all other opinion. The obvious answer would have been to loosen up on licensing so multiple viewpoints could be easily expressed. But, instead, the left chose to do to radio (no TV to amount to anything at the time) what they really wanted to do to newspapers but were forbidden by constitutional constraints. A case of refusing to make speech more free by cynically and indirectly stifling free speech though some of those who created the Frankenstein Monster Doctrine failed to understand what they were actually doing. We actually had a constitution with meaning back then.

The good intent was quickly preverted to stifle free speech. Yes, anyone could say anything but had to allow equal time to anyone with an opposing view. If I said the sky was blue and took an hour to do so someone who thought it was yellow was entitled to an equal hour. One who thought it green - another hour. Those who favoured purple - another hour. Now the "blue-sayer" might have paid for the hour but, because he/she/it got the time an equal amount had to be given to the each opponent at no cost. Hard to stay in business that way. In some jurisdictions it was (beyond the letter of the law) taken to mean that not only did broadcasters have to give equal time to those sayers of other coloured sky but actively seek them out!

Once stations proliferated the "doctrine" made no sense and was disposed of. Now that we're down to typically one newspaper, one point of view, per city then a case could be made for fairness-in-print. Except that's still unconstitutional - to the continued irritation of the left. But they'll overcome that in the fullness of time. What? You don't trust The New Messiah to EO that away, too? Oh ye of little faith!

 

[Pogo]

That's a cute fantasy, Millie. Lemme fix that for ya.

That's BS and you know it. The "Fairness" doctrine was the Left's way of controlling content on the air and in print. FACT!!!

Actually the intent at the time was somewhat justified by scarcity of the means of expressing points of view. When the number of broadcast licenses was very small a dominant station could demonize and shut out all other opinion. The obvious answer would have been to loosen up on licensing so multiple viewpoints could be easily expressed.

The broadcast dial was already limited, which was the whole point. Electronic real estate was severely limited. TV and FM were, as you note, all but nonexistent, and internet was a long way off, so mediumave ("AM radio") was all there was. Since that meant only a small handful would have room to play, the FD ensured that that handful could not take over the whole sandbox. Cross-ownership rules (the same entity owning all or most of the airwaves in a town) were there for the same purpose: diversity of discourse on the air. Which is the exact opposite of what Comrade Boris imagines in his demagogue-drunk fantasy.

But, instead, the left chose to do to radio (no TV to amount to anything at the time) what they really wanted to do to newspapers but were forbidden by constitutional constraints.

False. The entire pretext was, as already noted, that the broadcast dial was finite. No such limitation existed on newsprint; there is no limitation except the market on how many newspapers may coexist in one space. In radio there was.

And IIRC it was conservatives who championed the FD in the first place. Not sure if Joe McCarthy was one of them but he certainly made use of it in 1954 when Murrow broadcast his "See it Now" show about McCarthy who, since the show was specifically about him, asked for and was given an entire show to respond.

An analogy I keep making because it keeps working: the FD aimed for the same thing this message board aims for: dialogue over monologue. Anyone who reads this post can respond to it; if the nature of this website were such that I could write whatever I wanted and no one could respond, then you'd have what the radio dial would have been WITHOUT the Fairness Doctrine -- because of the electromagnetic spectrum's inherent limitations.

An internet message board of course has no such limitation, by definition. But if it did -- if it were a blog that didn't allow comment -- it would be where radio was without the FD.

A case of refusing to make speech more free by cynically and indirectly stifling free speech though some of those who created the Frankenstein Monster Doctrine failed to understand what they were actually doing. We actually had a constitution with meaning back then.

Yammer yammer, appeal to emotion, no content, no response.

The good intent was quickly preverted to stifle free speech. Yes, anyone could say anything but had to allow equal time to anyone with an opposing view. If I said the sky was blue and took an hour to do so someone who thought it was yellow was entitled to an equal hour. One who thought it green - another hour. Those who favoured purple - another hour. Now the "blue-sayer" might have paid for the hour but, because he/she/it got the time an equal amount had to be given to the each opponent at no cost. Hard to stay in business that way. In some jurisdictions it was (beyond the letter of the law) taken to mean that not only did broadcasters have to give equal time to those sayers of other coloured sky but actively seek them out!

I doubt that. I'm pretty sure the F in FCC stands for "Federal". That means they make the rules for the country-- not 'some jurisdictions'. Federal is ALL jurisdictions.

That sky colour example is overblown too. Not at all the kind of statement that would have applied.

Once stations proliferated the "doctrine" made no sense and was disposed of.

Wrong. Actually once media proliferated --- FM, TV, cable TV, and soon to come, internet and digital broadcasting -- all increased exponentially the number of information channels available to the general public. Therefore with the AM radio dial no longer being all there was, the premise of limited channels -- the basis for the Fairness Doctrine -- became obsolete. The scarcity factor -- the entire reason for the existence of the FD -- was ameliorated.

Nice spin though. It reminds me I have to do laundry.

Now that we're down to typically one newspaper, one point of view, per city then a case could be made for fairness-in-print.

Bullshit. There is still no inherent limitation on newsprint. If you want a second newspaper in your area you're perfectly free to start one. That the proliferation of other media just referenced above may make that economically challenging simply because that's the way the market works, seems to have eluded you, but no one has EVER suggested that newsprint is a limited medium, therefore it has to have a FD. That's bullshit.

And don't think you got away with "a case could be made" when you know damn well nobody's making such a case. You should be a politician.

Except that's still unconstitutional - to the continued irritation of the left.

Except that that's a strawman you just made up.

But they'll overcome that in the fullness of time. What? You don't trust The New Messiah to EO that away, too? Oh ye of little faith!

Back to yammer yammer yammer....

A lot of words to basically agree with me that Boris is full of shit.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ah, Pogo, when you get out of the hobbyist stage and find work in broadcast where you can get some real experience (cleaning up the coffee room at the leftist propaganda teakettle doesn't count) get back to us.

 

[Pogo]

Ah, Pogo, when you get out of the hobbyist stage and find work in broadcast where you can get some real experience (cleaning up the coffee room at the leftist propaganda teakettle doesn't count) get back to us.

Schooled again, and that's all he comes up with.

Must suck.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ah, Pogo, when you get out of the hobbyist stage and find work in broadcast where you can get some real experience (cleaning up the coffee room at the leftist propaganda teakettle doesn't count) get back to us.

Schooled again, and that's all he comes up with.

Must suck.

You missed a spot on the leftmost table.

Lick it up.

 

[kwc57]

The righties should recall their feelings for PRAVDA under the Soviets, and understand that we feel about FOX News the same way they felt about PRAVDA, for the same reasons.

Bad analogy. PRAVDA was the mouth piece of the politburo. Fox is anything but that. An apt analogy would be Obama ass-kissing MSNBC and the rest of the alphabet networks.