|
If they do this how are they going to make room on ABCCBSNBCPBSMSNBCCNNBETVH1MTVAirAmerica for Rush, Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, etc? Hasn't it occurred to them that the evil conservative point of view is confined to the "right wing media"? Do they really want their people to have to listen to it? |
|
Cause you know if I pay for it, it don't belong to the public.
Oh, until Obama takes office :) |
|
|
Demorats should at least have the guts to call it what it is: The Unfairness Doctrine ... Information Redistribution Doctrine ... Death to Talk Radio Doctrine. Pick one. They simply can't muster enough liberal, illuminati, whacko talking heads for the airwaves. Station owners and advertisers will kill the idea in its tracks, changing station formats to music, sports, etc. We need to fight this to the hilt. |
|
If fhe fairness doctrine only applies to radio airwaves then conservatives will turn to satellite and other technologies. Are the radio airwaves the only place you have to be fair?
|
|
|
that 90% of the Talk Radio Personalities were water carriers for the Stupid Party and the Stupid Party lost, shouldn't the Dem/libs want them to CONTINUE selling the bad fish to its members? |
|
|
the unfairness doctrine MUST BE STOPPED! NOW! |
|
we should be screaming our collective heads off about how it should apply to ALL venues.
I really don't want to believe that the citizens of my country, regardless of political view, would just passively accept this sort of thing. Maybe I'm naive. |
|
|
Nothing has happened yet -- All this woman does is raise unproven red flags and you all believe her. Are you all really that stupid? |
|
|
HE LOOKS KINA LIKE BILL MAHER!HE LOVES THE LIME LIGHT,BUT HATES THE REAL LIGHT!HE IS ONE OF THE LEMONS OF OUR TIME,THE SOUR GRAPE!THE SHUMER OF A LIBERAL MIND!WOW!YES LETS BE FAIR SHOW- MER,HAS THE PRESS BEEN FAIR!! HAS THE MEDIA BEEN IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA!????OF COURSE THY HAVE CHARLEE OLD CHAP! |
|
NOW! is right.
Interesting, that Schumer guy: Seems he is still upset over the fact that Howard Stern was moved off the airwaves for "decency" reasons. Some may recall that Schumer was a regular guest on Howard's show. The dots I connect here is maybe Schumer is a porno kind of guy. I don't say this as a nmae calling tactic, I JUST WANT HIM TO SHOW SOME RESTRAINT AND GET ABOVE THE PETTINESS OF HIS OWN THINKING. Well there is very little decency I have been able to find in Schumer. Bright, articulate, a clever devil. All intelligence and no wisdom, what a fool. He's upset, spoiled and now looks for revenge. He could care less about the spirit of Constitutional Rights in general even if he can quote the Constitution verbatim. But there in lies the problem: The intelligence at work and no wisdom.
His comments making a link between pornography and conservative talk radio exposes the very nakedness of this public servant. What a fool. Just because you silence a man does not mean you have won him over. Those that talk the game of reaching out should remember that that type of winning comes in winning over.
|
|
|
The real question is why aren't YOU scared about this? The Dem's shreading FREE SPEECH means YOU TOO. How could anyone vote for a party who wraps themselves in free speech ONLY to salivate over its DESTRUCTION? |
|
|
ONLY in America does one parrty defend free speech by smearing PORN EVERYWHERE, ANYTIME, crucifix's in urine, NAMBLA'S right? to moleste little boys, etc. BUT wants to stop RUSH from TALKING! COWARDS. |
|
|
The 3 STOOGES-SCHUMER-DEARBIN-and Fienstein--Do they know we live in the USA-not is some dictatorship- they should be denounced by all- is this why so many brave souls died in the wars -so we could have free speech! shame on them- they are such fools! |
|
|
I thought it was the conservatives who thought that it was unfair that big media organizations didn't give McCain as much time as Obama. Isn't it a little hypocritical for the conservatives to ask for equality in one medium and ask to maintain bias in another??? |
|
Make Matthews shut up and allow equal time for rebuttal, say by Rush or Hugh, without any screaming interruptions by Chrissy, and you will see how conservative ideas and logic will win the day.
What are we afraid of? Nothing.
But, why should we resist the fairness doctrine? For the same reason I will resist going to an Obama re-education camp -- I don't want to be forced listen to Matthews and Olbermann and their crazy wild-eyed rants -- I'd rather read a book or listen to music.
So. Here's a novel solution to you stoopid Libs -- USE THE OFF SWITCH! When I don't care to listen to Matthews, I change the channel or turn whole the damn thing off -- try it instead of trying to control the free expression of thought. |
|
|
It would seem that you neocons could have used this "change the channel" maneuver during the general election campaign... that is instead of nagging and whining about how the media are saying too many nice things about Obama. |
|
Conservatives, unlike you liberals do not want any restriction on radio or TV. That is the point. We already know, and the recent studies by major universities and think tanks have proven there is a left wing bias on TV. Isn't that enough for you and your ilk or do you just want to silence anyone with an opposing view?
That is exactly what your party is trying to do, they are trying to remove the first amendment to our constitution. And whether you like it or not, the constitution is still the law of the land.
Get over yourself, you sound more and more foolish with each post. |
|
|
I listen, and read and find all kinds of information from lots of sources, as obviously you do because you must listen to Rush (fyi I don't very much, amongst other things his ego bothers me). But then I have the freedom of choice to get my info elsewhere. I can just click my mouse and away he goes, gone, goodbye. I would not want any of them silenced, or marginalized by my government. That is the danger; It is that attitude that we need big brother to do it. We need big brother to watch over our money, and protect our streets and shores (and both sides have done a lousy job of that of late). But much less so our thoughts, speech and ideas. We can do that ourselves thank you very much. |
|
|
...Let us (you, me, everyone else)determine for ourelves what we want to listen to. We have set a few priorities like pornography and overly graphic stuff as out of line but that's far enough. We live in a free country where capitalism is the main mechanism for lining everyones pockets (fleecing them too I know). It also allows for mediums like the one we are using. This is not free you know. But don't fall for the lets silence them. What will that do? I would not want my government silencing the New York Times even though I have many disagreements with them (as I have many agreements with them). This should be mostly about principle but I am concerned that instead its vindictiveness being disquised as "fairness". This kind of government attitude and micro-management gets in our way so that we come to rely on the gov't for everything and every thought. We (I do it, you do it, we all do becauee we are human) let our emotions run wild and then look to for some pacificatin. But personally I don't want my gov't to be my pacifier. Besides it tastes lousy. Anyway If Rush is being marginalized by liberal thinking then its doing its job right? Why do we need the gov't to do it? Have more faith in your own liberlism? In the truth and wisdom of your own ideals. If you "win the day" it will be a true victory not a contrived one and I might vote for you to be president. |
|
|
Don't be a disingenuous fool. The major (and minor) networks and the vast majority of the print media are overwhelmingly liberal; talk radio is the only medium in which conservative thought reigns supreme. There was demonstrated media bias in the coverage of the two campaigns- Republicans asked for more balanced coverage. Dems want to use the heavy hand of govt to force radio station owners to balance their broadcasts. Did you know that the Fairness Doctrine does not apply to TV or print? Funny how the libs don't have to achieve any balance but the only conservative outlet has to. Air america failed partly because the liberal viewpoint is already being dished up in huge quantities. Please stop the "reasonable person" ploy and wake up. If they come for us, they can come for you next. |
|
the internet to control all free speech. |
|
Go look up the definition of the fairness doctrine! Do you believe in shutting down free speech?
MSM still have free speech don't they?
Nobody said that MSM should be shut down did they?
What is hypocritical about everyone having freedom of Speech?
|
|
by your questions, does that mean you suport de-funding NPR and PBS?
After all they are paid for with taxpayer dollars, and I never seem to hear or see any conservative points of view on either of those programs.
You are the ultimate hypocrite.
I told you last week that Arianna called, she is STILL looking for her lapdog, I told her where she can find you. Now go home to Huffy Puffy. You have worn out your welcome here. |
|
|
It wouid be hypocritical if neocons (I am not one) were asking the gov't to do it. You are right that Talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts. Papers are dominated by liberal writers. And the internet... Well now, that's the wide open spaces isn't it? |
|
|
No one and I mean no one, at this moment in time can stop anyone on the airways. We as a nation will have to protest, write to our congressmen and women(wether it helps or not) keep the lines of communication jammed up, so this can not go through. We cannot let this happen. If we as a nation let this happen. What else is he going to get away with. NO! NO! NO! I for one will fight for the right to speak my mine on the computer, tv, radio and anywhere else I can proclaim freedom. We cannot let this go the next thing they will want is to come into our homes and moniter our sex lives. It cannot happen. Please help with this. Please Stop it in its tracks write to fox and all the news stations right or left. Keep the lines tied up so we can become a little more free. |
|
|
Network ratings are down as is their advertising revenue; the NYTimes is practically on life support. I would hate to see them go, they are so stinkin' entertaining. But the market is making them pay for their bias, and the government need not force them to change. That's the difference -- we don't want the government force change on any media. |
|
two words for you:
Air America |
|
|
Listen guys, I am with on this whole fairness doctrine. I think the government should keep their nose out of free speech and a free press (pornography included brian). I just got really annoyed when people on this site were complaining the entire campaign about how the MSM should be forced to give equal coverage even though the campaigns (by definition) were not equal. As long as you all are willing to stipulate that the media should be allowed to cover whatever they want, I have no problem with opposing the fairness doctrine. |
|
|
Appreciate the wisdom of your response. |
|
I agree with the fact that no matter how much MSM Mccain got, he still didn't have the Campaign manager that Obama had. The MSM did help Obama by showing their support for him and did avoid any information that would benefit anyone about Obama. It was like a Ms America Contest and you knew who the MSM was going to vote for. I give all the credit to Obamas Campaign manager, he made Obama look like a Messiah which he isn't. Mccain didn't have anything going for him other than Sarah.
Mccain did himself in plain and simple.
Jeramy, I don't like Obama as a president he doesn't have anything about him that follows my values and I don't believe in higher taxes and I don't believe in a Bloated Government, I think every american should be given a list of how much money is wasted on special interests. Now tell me something Jeramy if you had a business and it was going down the drain would you raise your prices? or would you lower your prices and bring in money to keep your business above water?
Obama is taking an economy already at its lowest point before a depression and wants to spend more money?
Bush was hounded day in and day out about spending but it is alright if Dems put the country deeper into a recession right?
Now that is confusing. |
|
conservative radio will move to satillite and the internet and all those radio stations will go out of business. Then the libs can take credit for putting more people out of jobs.
I say take it one step further. Demand that all public schools (that includes public universities) have the same number of liberal and conservative teachers. |
|
brian writes: Friday, November, 07, 2008 4:20 PM
TERRY
The real question is why aren't YOU scared about this? The Dem's shreading FREE SPEECH means YOU TOO. How could anyone vote for a party who wraps themselves in free speech ONLY to salivate over its DESTRUCTION?
Brain--
I'm not worried about it because it is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You need to start living in the present and quit listening to the doom and gloomers that are currently on the radio. As well as Ms Bachmann (did you see her make a fool out of herself on Hardball?????) |
|
I believe that American capital is grossly misappropriated. American money could be doing so much more for our economy than it currently is. I understand (and in some cases agree with) the GOP Darwinian model of the economy... survival of the fittest and all. And I have no doubt that at some point in the future the US economy would be able to eventually right itself. The only problems are that evolution take a REALLY LONG TIME and people are losing jobs today and, like the dinosaurs, evolution has extinguished millions of our species and could do the same to our economy.
What I like about Obama's plan is he is going to invest a lot of American capital into energy technology. This will have a number of positive effects on the economy. ET, if properly managed, can exhibit explosive growth. Since most energy technologies are require mass production, we will be able to offer unemployed Americans millions of jobs. Finally (and most importantly), a booming energy technology will preclude the need for us to hemorrhage $700 billion/year to foreign countries. |
|
|
Whatever she's selling, I'm not buying it. Michele Bachmann is a nutjob and has no business in any position of political power. If you doubt it, go to YouTube and watch her interview on Hard Ball with Chris Matthews. Then go read her Wikipedia entry. What is up with Minnesota these days?! |
|
MS.Bachmann you should have been driven out of office for your unAmerican suggestions and your district needs to open there eyes a little wider.
I saw that interview with Mr. Matthews and while he is a tough interview, he's mostly fair. He allows for guests to insert their own feet in mouths and you accomadated. You live to govern another day because your constituents either don't understand the severity of your suggestions or they are like you,either way I'm glad you're not my representative. Your future is now about as bright Sarah Palins. Stay local because your future in politics has topped out.
As John McLaughlin would say -BYE,BYE ! |
|
|
I didn't realize this article was written by Michele Backmann. This seems pretty inert by her standards. Last I heard from Michele she was trying to appoint a congressional inquisitor to root out "un American" Americans. She is just the kinda person where you have to point and laugh |
|
sarahjane writes: Friday, November, 07, 2008 4:07 PM
Really folks, WHY is this a problem for you - considering that we are talking about PUBLIC airwaves, not private, wingnut monopolies? but you can't hold the public airwaves hostage to rightwing rule, no matter how entitled you think you are.
Of course, Limbaugh would have you believing that his show would be held hostage to invite liberals with their own [smart, correct, fact-based] viewpoint to counter his own, and while that would be a great idea - and for reasons that would ensure he'd sound like the utter buffoon he is - it won't happen that way. Instead, Rush will have to share his fat, lardy time slot with an opposing viewpoint somewhere else on the dial. Hence he'd have to deal with people having a CHOICE - and given a choice, he'd lose a lot of listeners. THAT'S the ONLY reason why Rushbo doesn't want the Fairness Doctrine.
Frankly, Rush is currently being marginalized by the rising tide of left-leaning Americans, so it's really kind of sad and pathetic to think that the rightwing is worried about having to share the stage. Your time is past, anyway, gang.
You win one election and our time has passed? This is why it's only a matter of time before conservatives are back. These people are so damn smug and arrogant. BTW...if the Dems do try to do this then are betraying the very thing they claim they cherish so much. With that being said, I don't think we'd hear hardly any Dems saying it's un-American. Trying to pass something like this is tantamount to delcaring war and I submit if they do pass it we refuse to accept it. Make them come and force them off the air. Make them use the force of government and let the chips fall where they may. A law passed by tyrants isn't valid. Seriously folks no matter what pretty Orwellian language they couch it in this is the kind of thing that should be opposed by any means....any means. |
|
|
While sarahjane must think she's quite clever and cute just know that this is not just some policy issue. Try running this to a conservatives face and you might like the outcome. You mental midgets have no concept of liberty. You dominate our schools, entertainment, and television airwaves yet you come here peddling this stuff? Are you liar or a fool? Anyway, this is serious folks. This is the kind of thing that starts uprisings. No matter how much you yell "Fainess" anybody with half a brain knows what this is....and I suspect you do to. This is an attempt to silence critics...not balance out. The fact is no radio could live up to the requirements of what was the Fairness Doctrine because it was instituted in a time that couldn't conceive of the radio landscape today. This is an assault on Democracy and that should be fought to whatever extreme necessary. |
|
jeramy writes: Friday, November, 07, 2008 4:41 PM
I'm confused
I thought it was the conservatives who thought that it was unfair that big media organizations didn't give McCain as much time as Obama. Isn't it a little hypocritical for the conservatives to ask for equality in one medium and ask to maintain bias in another???
The difference moron is that we ask for fairness, but never demand it be given through the force of the state. Do you really not see the difference? Conservatives bemoan the bias in the media but would never dream of forcing fairness at gunpoint. And yes...government forcing "fairness" of opinion is by gunpoint and should not be taken no matter what some law says. Here's a an idea. Enjoy your victory and play by the rules. Clinton won a victory and nobody started trying to figure out ways to shut up the defeated party. I know the lust for power is great but this is playing with fire. |
|
Name calling aside, let's be honest. Democrats aren't looking for fairness in radio any more than Republicans are looking for fairness in television. Both sides would censor each other if possible.
Warning: Historically, those who suppress freedom are ALWAYS vilified. Eventually, the villains are ALWAYS overthrown. It's in our DNA. Freedom of expression is in everyone's interest. |
|
|
Al Franken, the never was has been from Air America is living proof that the cross threaded leftist lock nuts cannot, cannot, maintain and support a listening audience on their own radio network so they must, like so many leeches, attach their sucking mouth parts onto the highly successful conservative talk show radio hosts via a legislative mandate. |
|
"I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.'
That's hilarious. These guys have no qualms about their incredible hypocrisy. We don't know anything about Barack Obama other than what he wants us to know. Durbin has no problem with that. I didn't hear him calling for the LA Times to release the video tape of Obama's speech at the Kahlidi dinner. We didn't need to know that side. How about how the left jumped all over Stephanopolous for asking about William Ayers? Guess we didn't need to know that side either. The fairness doctrine was put out of date by the alternative media. When there are hundreds of outlets for news, people will find the ones that they feel are the most fair. Let the market decide. Durbin, et. al. want to eliminate the outlets they don't like. Nothing fair about that.
|
|
This is for the "Obama is not my president!" crowd. We live in a democracy where everyone voted. Given our electoral rules, we voted in Obama. Just because I did not vote for him doesn't make him any less of the POTUS. He will be the president of the United States for everyone, not just the people who like him or voted for him.
I bring this up because I would like to see conservatives show more class in the next four years than the libs ever showed Bush or any other Republican leader. We are better people than that and we don't need to give libs a reason to say, "LOOK! You do the exact same thing as we do when the tables have turned." I'm not saying that we let Obama slide by and we must hold him accountable and call him out when he messes up. There will always be room for intelligent discourse and discussion without developing an "Obama Derangement Syndrom".
I'm not a fan of Obama and didn't vote for him. But he will be my president and I will give the respect that the president (not necessarily the person holding it) deserves. |
|
Prior to 1927 all airwaves were private. A company built a transmitter for an unoccupied frequency and proceeded to broadcast. It was a simple matter of "homesteading" a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
However, there were claim jumpers. Some people people decided to invade occupied frequencies. The radio stations were, essentially, the victims of a robbery. So they did what people do when their property is stolen, they asked the government for help. The result was the greatest single theft in all of history, the nationalization of the airwaves.
The Radio Act of 1927 and the subsequent Federal Communications Act of 1934 simply declared that the airwaves "belonged to the people" much like Hugo Chavez did with oil wells. Just because you have a lot of guns at your command doesn't change theft into rightful ownership.
So anyone who says that the airwaves belong to the people is sanctioning the expropriation of private property perpetrated 80 years ago.
The airwaves need to be re-privatized so that the Schumers and Durbins of the world cannot ever control them again. |
|
I only disagree with the statement that liberals never respected President Bush. Bush quickly castigated the Democrats, making them public enemy number one. He gutted civil liberties, sequestered the press & legislated from the extreme right. When 9/11 happened, everyone came together...not just the country, but the entire world was behind us. Bush squandered that opportunity big time. After invading Iraq on faulty and misleading information, Bush crowed "you are either with us or against us." He did not talk to the press (not even Fox News), held very few conferences and hunkered down with Cheney and Rove, making his administration the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
Say what you will about CNN, MSNBC and even ABC. They might even have a liberal slant, but they do have conservative viewpoints, Republican guests and allow those views to be expressed, most times without shouting over the guest or having their mics cut off! Fairness Doctrine? Absolutely. |
|
A "Fairness Doctrine" cannot be FAIR if it is applied selectively.
So if Democrats want to "balance out" talk radio, that is fine.
IF...
They also balance out the print and television media as well.
NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and all the major newspapers should ALL be required to hire AS MANY conservative commentators as liberal viewpoints.
Too many independent studies have indicated that this type of media is slanted the other way.
If the Democrats try to apply a "Fairness Doctrine" ONLY to areas where they are unpopular, then it is not fair.
I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would LOVE to be able to have an hour of time every evening on CNN or MSNBC. |
|
What is fairness? How far should we carry egalitarianism? Should we all be 6'0", 180 pounds for males? 5'8" 135 female? Or all 1 gender? What about income? What about equality of outcome? What if I don't work a day in my life, should I make the same salary as someone who went to medical school, internship, residency, etc?
Who decides what's fair? Do we have a panel of perfectly impartial people monitoring every second of every broadcast? Why limit it to that? Why not conversations in a public building between individuals or groups? Why not privately owned buildings as well? After all, don't people 'deserve'hear both sides in a conversation? Maybe we all need to undergo monthly 'fairness audits'.
The fact of the matter is, a free market is as close to 'fair' as it gets because I choose to listen and support what I want, without compulsion. Sure, it's good to get both sides, but no one should be forced to. Besides, no one can seriously allege that it's impossible to get alternative viewpoints out there given our current Information Age.
Government mandated 'fairness' is really a catchword for suppression of dissent. In order to be truly fair, one would have to possess all knowledge on a given subject and quite possibly all possible knowledge in the universe, because how do you know you're truly being 'balanced' if you don't know every possible angle? Last I checked, despite the seeming arrogance of a recently elected statesman, only one Being in the universe can truly lay claim to omniscience, but even He lets us make free choices. |
|
|
whiners --it's not fair--oh the left is all about being fair--if you don't like what talk radio says then don't listen! |
|
Latter-day Saint temple-goers were in lock down at the L.A. LDS Temple yesterday. They couldn't leave because of the 2000 angry Prop 8 protesters.
Gays have called for the burning of all the CA temples. They have also called for the death of Mormon contributors (which is nuts since there were more non-Mormons who gave money.)
Contributions are required to be public record.
This turn of events isn't exactly the "fairness doctrine," but threatening people because of their donations to a political cause? Talk about squelching free speech.
Is this still America? Maybe not.
|
|
|
as the conservative talk guys can start now to define the debate, and insist on any sanctions on placed on them would have to be extended to the MSM including the networks, the big newspapers and magazines in order to be fair, they should be able to navigate this mine field. If you can make this case, the MSM will NOT stand for it and the Libs will not want to sanction their free propoganda distributors just to quiet a few talk show hosts. |
|
|
Well, if its fairness they want, then why don't they put this doctrine to real use - 50% conservative voices on TV news, in Hollywood, in record industry, newspapers, magazines, and in public universities. Those coward liberals don't really want fairness, they are against freedom of speech and they need to be attacked for their anti-American views. The first amendment is about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We need to take these laws to the Supreme Court just like they do whenever the government does something they don't like. They are taking our freedoms away. Down with tyrants like Schumer. A Jew, who understands what happens when the government takes away peoples freedom of speech doing the same thing. Shame on him!!! |
|
|
Obama is the president-elect of the USA. But think about this - he received about 60 million votes in country of 300 million, McCain got about 57 million votes. That means that more then 180 million people did not vote for either of these two men. If you take away 80 million who are children and cannot vote, that means (I'm rounding these number up, I'm not being absolutely accurate - I'm just making a point), that means that 100 million people did not vote for either of these candidates. That is amazing! 100 million Americans did not see anything in either of these two men that they thought was worth voting for last Tuesday. So that means that Obama has 60 million people on his side, but there are 240 million Americans who are taking a wait and see outlook. I wish all the Presidents and government officials would think about this and be a little more humble in their actions and words. I know this is pie in the sky, but there is always hoping. |
|
To balance out my previous conservative post with the opposite, "balanced" view:
Blah, blah, blah, yackety smakety, nonsense, YES WE CAN, hope, change, enslave the people while claiming to protect them, doubletalknewspeak, 2+2=5 and the oceans are already receding!
I think that about covers it.
Now was that fairness by word volume, idea quality, or what? I hope this'll pass the Politburo- oops! I mean Congress' all-wise standards. I hope... |
|
I AGREE THEY HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT HIS SUBJECT SO MAYBE WE NEED TO START HITTING PELOSI AND ASK HER IF THIS IS REALLY WHAT SHE WANTS. THEN THE WILL HAVE TO MAKE ROOM FOR CONSERVATIVES ON MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC IS AIR AMERICA STILL ON THE AIR. I THOUGHT THEY HAD CLOSED DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THESE NUT JOBS.
I HOPE WHEN THESE IDIOTS START TRYING TO TAKE OUR RIGHTS AWAY THAT WE PROTEST INSTEAD OF SITTING ON THE SIDE LINES.
IF WE DO NOT STOP IT THEN NO ONE WILL
START BOMBARDING NANCY PELOSI SPEAKER TO ASK HER IF THIS IS WHAT SHE REALLY WANTS |
|
Now lets see here, it seems to me that there is only 1 news station that is "fair," compared to around 7 blatantly bias UN-fair stations.
What the heck is this country coming to. Where do we live? In a communist country? This is pushing me over the edge. |
|
Every time I read irrational crap, like your opinion, it makes me sick to my stomach. You are soooo far gone. Why don't you move to another country and stop trying to further your participation in making my country worthless.
|
|
|
Schumer compares "porn" to conservative talk radio? what a JOKE! This man and the rest of the joker leftist kooks who want to bring this "fairness" act back are trying to CONTROL THE WORLD, ahahahahah!!! My god, we're not able to turn on the TV with the pleasure of choosing from more that only ONE news station for "fair" reporting and commentating. Leave our conservative radio alone!!! Its all we got! There is NOTHING on TV to "choose" from! The CREEPY EXTREMISTS want to control our pocket book, health care and now our MINDS!!!! This is like a SciFi movie. Can this actually be happening. |
|
|
Think about this: first, our Democrat controlled congress saw the economy failing and did nothing about it, knowing that the President would be blamed and we (Republicans)would lose the white house. Then, the manuchurian candidate, Obama, is elected by a mere 6% margin, but still, elected. Now he can load the courts with liberal, legislate from the bench judges who rule that the fairness doctrine doesn't violate the first amendment (they can make their own reality). Then, they reinstitute the fairness doctrine. Conservatives need to organize now, to stop this whole scenario. |
|
|
Let's start fighting this now. A pre-emptive strike. Boycott NBC,ABC,and CBS news if you aren't already. Watch their ratings plummet and let them wonder what's going on. I only watch Fox news because I know that even though I will have to listen to the liberal point of view, it will be balanced by conservative views too. |
|
|
|
|
it's usually not ,the very thought that you can dictate fairness in political discussion is moronic. talk radio is market driven ,if rush's numbers were to plummet he would be gone from the airwaves the next day . the fairness doctrine is an orwellian suppresion of the first ammendment and a blatant attempt to control political dissent . |
|
|
Why must the government find it necessary to be "control freaks" especially on the left? I've met many a left-wing-nut whom hates Rush Limbaugh yet has never listened to him at all. Let the free market decide and advertisers be attracted to,what listeners want to hear - or should we demand the "fairness doctrine" apply to all the newspapers and TV networks? |
|
Nick said:
"Chuck Schumer is a moron"
That is simply unfair. Only idiots the "Fairness Doctrine". Morons are much too smart for that. |
|
|
There's a huge difference between "socialist fairness" and actual fairness. |
|
Airwaves are free enterprise like commercials. Man even in dictatorships practice freedom.
Bring me the clicker. I will listen to what I want and turn off the rest.
So the station looses revenues and internet gains.
When will progressives elitists learn they can not dictate man, unless they want a decoup. |
|
This country is getting scarier and scarier by the minute. The elections just happened and already Barry had to apologize to the most impressive first lady we had since the 1900s. And it was only DAY THREE! Imagine what will happen when he finally does take office!
The Unfairness Doctrine is the democrats being able to dish it out (for the last 8 years) but not being able to take it themselves. Why weren't they pushing for a "Fairness Doctrine" when people were slamming Bush?
Also, be wary of more of your rights being taken away. Like they did before when they made it ILLEGAL for people to say anything negative about the government. It was eventually lifted but if it ever was to make a comeback its during this administration. |
|
|
Dems can blather on about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but consider that several of the huge Radio broadcasting business are owned by Dems themselves (Emmaus Broadcasting, for example). I SERIOUSLY doubt they want to put themselves out of business, because Air America proves lib talk doesn't make money. However, if they somehow manage to get this passed, Conservative Talk will continue on by moving to Satellite and any Talk Radio stations left promoting lib talk will fail....Capitalism at its finest. Then watch the following election cycle...POOF...Libs gone again...conservatives back in power! |
|
Mr. Schumer makes one of the most basic of logic errors, that of the categorical falacy. By mere asertion, without justification, he equates two distinct things, pornography and talk radio, and then mistakingly concludes policies toward them should be "fairly" applied. If people want to hear both sides of the story, our media soaked world provides a plethora of resources which anyone can draw from without the imposition of onerous control. Those left of center are always quick to tout, "choice," except when it comes to choices they find disagreeable. That an argument even has to be formulated to counter comments made by Mr. Schumer indicates we as a society have largely lost our ability to make common sense moral distinctives.
Even as a John McCain supporter, I am glad the election is over, though certainly disappointed. The people have spoken. Mr. Obama will be my president. I only hope that that underneath his skilled rhetoric lies a man who still has the moral capability remaining to make correct disctinctions, a skill which Mr. Schumer seems to have lost. And as a Christian, I am admonished to pray for those in authority over me, including Mr. Schumer and Mr. Obama. |
|
The possible return of the fairness doctrine via the Democrats is just more proof to me that they have become that which they have always feared.
They are the facists that they have been waiting for.
Also, did anyone else notice some chick gets her 'news' from Colbert? Um, OK, really? This is the future of America? Comedy Central for news? R.I.P. America. 1776-2008. |
|
Are you really as stupid as your posts?
I would disseminate you but I just can't seem to dumb down enough to a level that you would understand.
Perhaps you should start with every single media watch dog group that pointed out that the media was bias, including several liberal think tanks.
Then you should maybe perhaps look at the NY Times own ombudsman and how many times he has had to slap them.
You make the typical liberal mistake in assuming that because one disagrees with you that they just don't have all of the facts.
Your hubris is your ignorance. |
|
|
the Democrats think that everyone is just too stupid to choose correctly what they should listen to and support. |
|
Schumer is an idiot to begin with. He is frustrated b/c he's reached the pinnacle of his political career -- read that as he won't play well outside of NY. I'm a New Yorker and have had first hand experience with this political 'genius'.
Reinforcing the fairness doctrine is moving us from Obama's socialist agenda to a communist agenda. Yeah, yeah, I know we had it before but just ask yourselves who put it into play -- enough said.
For those of you on the left -- just ask yourselves (and, if you can, be completely honest with yourselves) how you would react if the conservatives pushed this on you.
Good luck. |
|
I CONTACT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP LAST NIGHT AND LET EACH OF THEM KNOW THAT I WILL NOT STAND AND SO WILL MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FOR THE STOPPING THE FREE SPEECH IN OUR NATION ESPECIALLY BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THE LOONY TUNE LIBERAL SPOUT THEIR IDIOTCY. I ALSO REMINDED THEM THAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE GOES BOTH WAYS NOT ONLY WILL THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE TO ALLOW THE LIBERAL TIME BUT THE LIBERALS WILL HAVE TO ALLOW THE CONSERVATIVES THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. SO I ASK DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PUSH THIS YOU IDIOT.
SO CONTACT THE DEMOCRATS AND LET THEM KNOW THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS NOT AN OPTION. BUT VOTING THEM OUT OF OFFICE IF THEY TRY WILL BE IN SEVERAL YEARS. BECAUSE WE ARE WATCHING |
|
I made my comment about this on my blog.
Summary: I don't have a problem with it so long as oppression is what America voted for along with the undermining of commerce across ALL MEDIA.
All media caters to it's market. where 50% or more are democrat viewers they cater to that market. Makes good business sense.
Of course talk radio has a different segment, mostly older folks listening to it, conservative, so they appeal to their listener and advertiser base too.
So if there is going to be an imposition on one media, it needs to be on all of them including internet news sources.
Why stop at forcing talk radio to appeal to markets that don't care for the medium? Many don't care what network anchors report either, adding a conservative balance to network media will increase their market share no less than forcing liberal voices onto talk radio.
Those who are not talk radio fans will naturally think there is nothing wrong with the Fairness Doctrine, and do not realize the lack of conservative voices in other media, from the network executives down to reporters. Thus talk radio is THE BALANCE in relation to those other media, the market demographics admit this. |
|
IT IS TIME BEFORE OBAMA GETS INTO OFFICE TO CONTACT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP AND LET THEM KNOW THE FAIRNESS DOCTINE WILL NOT FLY. GO TO WEB LINK AND CALL NOW
http://democrats.senate.gov/members/ |
|
They won't listen.
Some had 100:1 ratios of people saying "do not pass the bailout." Over time people lost their steam once more, one of the few times liberals and conservatives agreed was the bailout.
Yet the two candidates, both endorsed this. Further Harry Reid unconstitutionally picked up a dead bill in the House, added government revenue changes to it, then packaged it as an amendment to another bill to be sent back to the House after the Senate approved. This means the "bills of the revenue" originated in the Senaate, not the House. Article I, Secion 7, Clause 1 absolutely prohibits this. So do the House Rules but no one cared then and no one cares now.
Point being they won't listen, they didn't then with such overwhelming numbers, they won't now. All they care about now is power, nothing less, and like many an oppressed people during the rule of tyranny America is soon to suffer, unless Obama reverses himself, which isn't that impossible to believe, but highly unlikely.
Carter's 2nd term! Obama is even bringing back tax shelters with that capital gains elimination on small business. Just amazing! He doesn't think raising it to 28% on the wealthy will make them hide it legally and keep him from getting a dime, but hey this is what those who voted for him want so I am not standing in the way, nor am I going to produce and put myself in the position of being subjected to Obama's madness for the sake of the bottom feeders.
Viva Che Guevara! :p |
|
|
It's all so clear to me now. The left is the party of tolerance, fairness, and unity. The right are evil, filthy (like that horrible pornagraphy, yew), and hate-filled. The left's method of unifying will be simple. Either agree with them or be attacked and silenced. Yeah, that should work. Karl Marx would be proud. Silly me, I should've gotten with the program a long time ago. It would have saved me all the grief I'm suffering due to my right-wing rage. |
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Fairness Doctrine abridges Freedom of speech.
|
|
I just wanted to invite anybody who holds conservative to moderate political values to check out AmericaC2C.Org. We are a free online group of people from across the U.S., who are working together toward things like Honesty in Journalism, promoting traditional American and Constitutional values, and ensuring a continued conservative/moderate voice in America.
We could use additional like-minded people to work alongside of us. Thank you very much.
http://www.AmericaC2C.Org |
|
I just wanted to invite anybody who holds conservative to moderate political values to check out AmericaC2C.Org. We are a free online group of people from across the U.S., who are working together toward things like Honesty in Journalism, promoting traditional American and Constitutional values, and ensuring a continued conservative/moderate voice in America.
We could use additional like-minded people to work alongside of us. Thank you very much.
AmericaC2C.Org |
|
|
Emanuel and Schumer are the real heads of the government. Obama is a nobody front man. |
|
|
Emanuel and Schumer are the real heads of the government. Obama is a nobody front man. |
|
The government licenses the airwaves to promote order, not to regulate content. As such, you and Sen. Schumer are wrong. Pornography is deemed as obscene and not covered by the constitution. No one could seriously allege the Founders would have favored it being in the public square. (It's not a 'living', i.e. 'means whatever I want' document. Such concepts are meaningless- unless you're saying you wrote a 'living' post). Putting a 100,000 watt tower on whatever frequency you want doesn't promote order either.
Regulating viewpoints is not in the public interest; that's what a marketplace is for. The public votes with its dollars and patronage of advertisers on programs that are popular. Would you be in favor of this if it abridged liberal viewpoints? Does the Constitution only work for those who agree with us?
Every dictator thought that what he was doing was ultimately 'for the good of the people', or even the world. Or do you think they don't justify their abuses to their people, at least before gaining power? Unfortunately, the same power you advocate today may be used against you tomorrow. How do you get a camel in a tent? Let it stick its nose in. |
|
|
I can assure you McCain will vote for it. Why? During the primaries, Mitt bought air time or used his connections to make all talk radio paid mouth pieces say McCain was unacceptable and that 'we' should vote Mitt. They attacked McCain so much, it's no wonder independents found it difficult to vote for McCain. Listening during the primaries, I realized that the fairness doctrine may not be a bad idea after all. |
|
The government licenses the airwaves to promote order, not to regulate content. As such, you and Sen. Schumer are wrong. Pornography is deemed as obscene and not covered by the constitution. No one could seriously allege the Founders would have favored it being in the public square. (It's not a 'living', i.e. 'means whatever I want' document. Such concepts are meaningless- unless you're saying you wrote a 'living' post). Putting a 100,000 watt tower on whatever frequency you want doesn't promote order either.
Regulating viewpoints is not in the public interest; that's what a marketplace is for. The public votes with its dollars and patronage of advertisers on programs that are popular. Would you be in favor of this if it abridged liberal viewpoints? Does the Constitution only work for those who agree with us?
Every dictator thought that what he was doing was ultimately 'for the good of the people', or even the world. Or do you think they don't justify their abuses to their people, at least before gaining power? Unfortunately, the same power you advocate today may be used against you tomorrow. How do you get a camel in a tent? Let it stick its nose in. |
|
|
Where are your facts to back up these claims? Or do you prefer character assassination to actual discourse? Ad hominem attacks are usually a sign of a bankrupt argument. |
|
|
Where are your facts to back up these claims? Or do you prefer character assassination to actual discourse? Ad hominem attacks are usually a sign of a bankrupt argument. |
|
I didn't know Buchmann blogs on this site? Who let this failed Muppet to post? This woman is right at the top of people who , for the sake of this nation, must be removed from any meaningful government position. Re-election of her was one of the disappointments of this cycle.
And on to FD, government should not dictate how a business be run. If a station does not profit from a few hours slot of opposing point of view, then such mandate serves as a governmental enforcement to literally lose money for the sake of the content stasis. That being said, the FD is a cry for the status of which media is in at this time. |
|
Im not in favor of the government intruding on our right to free speech by setting guidelines for its programming, but it has worked on tv with Hannity and Colmes, although I wish those guys would not interrupt their guests while they talk. They need to stop drinking coffee during the shows...........their way to hyper.
Anyway, Fight on.....it it fails so be it... work it. |
|
First of all, my post contained objective assertions about ratings and the financial history of Fox Network, not personal attacks. You need to pull out your dictionary (if you have one) and look up the meaning of ad hominem (if you know how) .
As for the facts, here’s Olbermann overtaking O’Reilly recently.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/30/oreilly-vs-olbermann- through-thursday-may-29/3980
and here http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=589
Look up the rest yourself.
|
|
A quarter of a century ago, a man who believed in stifling political dissent left the FCC. He is a man who reveres the Unfairness Doctrine.
Well, HE’S BACK!
Chairman Obama is naming Comandante Henry Rivera as the new Commissar of the FCC.
His mission is to oversee the destruction of Talk-Radio.
Chairman Obama is in for one hell of a surprise.
We will not go quietly into the night.
We will fight! |
|
It's obvious that Americans don't listen to left wing talk radio (Air America...hello...is this thing on?..testing..1..2..) so now they want to FORCE radio outlets to air this crap?!
Well, there goes the first amendment. What's next?...the second? |
|
It's applied to broadcast TV news and opinion shows like the View. IF it applies to NPR and cable sewage like Olberman. IF they apply it to the print media as well. If "freedom of the press" was interpreted to mean electronic media then the Fairness Doctrine should compel the NY Times, LA Times, Atlanta Urinal-Constipation and Washington Compost to run EQUAL length articles by CONSERVATIVES. IF they let opinion into a news piece then a rebuttal of equal length MUST be printed on the SAME page the next day.
Get ready for the howls. They count on total media control that's why they have such a "woody" for Talk Radio.
-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!! |
|
|
For some reason, this is less troubling to me than it is to many here. I trust the market to take care of the problem. Long before the F.D. was repealed, I was an avid Prager listener. And an enthusiastic Elder listener. In between their shows on KABC was a liberal hostess. I turned her off whenever she was hysterical, or unreasonable, or smug, or smarmy. One of these usually occurred before her first commercial break. I usually had a lunch appointment or something anyway. Then I'd turn on Larry when it was time for his show. He was followed by a "funny" liberal hostess. I even admired her comic timing and creativity, and was, in fact quite friendly, in my day-to-day life, with her two "voice guys", the celeb impersonators and shtickmeisters on her show who'd make you laugh while you were choking on leftist tripe. But she was far from profound or insightful, so *click!*, off she'd go, and in would go a CD, or I'd tune to the FM jazz station. And that's how it shall go with our beloved talkers should this bit of re-legislation come to be. What, you think Prager's going to be by the side of an off-ramp by the 101 Freeway with a sign that says "Will Opine For Cigars"? Nah. In fact, it may even lead to more jobs, even the creation of new stations, to accommodate this F.D. format, certainly on XM or Sirius. Let's not be as hysterical as our liberal counterparts, folks. Be of good cheer. The market will bear us out, of that I have confidence. |
|
"First of all, my post contained objective assertions about ratings and the financial history of Fox Network, NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS."
Really? This is the problem with the level of discourse from the left - you don't even know what you are saying. I could forgive your ignorance if it wasn't in print. Your posts contain the following statements:
"What a pathetic moron"
"So go ahead and waste your time jackin' off about the Fairness Doctrine."
"You always looked like someone who sleeps with her hands under the covers."
"Basically, you’re full of cr*p"
That's just 2 posts worth and you claim not to make personal attacks. This is why it's impossible to have reasoned debate with your ilk. Between you and sarahjane and your fellow travellers the hatred you continue to express will not advance this great nation one inch.
|
|
|
Did he just compare opinion to pornography? Politician's really are an arrogant bunch to think we would ever buy that. |
|
needs to be targeted by Republicans in Congress for his Fannie and Freddie support. He is one of the players that helped destroy this economy.
Please write your U.S. Senators and Congressmen demanding this guy get investigated, along with Barnyard Frank, Chiss Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other high profile Dems. |
|
claiming that the Washington Post article admitting how biased the WP was during the election was "proof" that we need to reinstate the unFairness Doctrine. I don't know if I was outraged more by the fact that someone would advocate for taking away right protected under the 1st Amendment, or for the fact that NO ONE pointed out to this moron that the unFairness doctrine would not have stopped the WP from being in the tank for the Dem, but would only silence the only voice of criticism from the other side.
I thought it was the Dems who were telling us how "patriotic" it is to be a voice of dissent and speak out against the government? Who could forget Hillary's nails on the chalkboard screech about this??? Can the hypocrisy get any more obvious?
"First they come for your guns, then your ability to speak, then your religion" |
|
Isn't it telling that some like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who are so interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine were silent when the MSM acted as an arm of the Obama campaign?
They are the leaders of the incoming Reign of Hypocrisy that seems upon us under
Obama who is already toning down his grand scale utopia. |
|
I am glad they kept quiet. I do not want the government meddling with anyones 1st amendment rights whether they be public, press or radio hosts. The supreme court has already ruled that the limiting amount of airwave frequencies is not grounds for raising a 1st amendment issue and it should stay that way.
The courts have also struck down previous attempts to regulate press content. The Miami Herald was once forced by a state law to publish the responses of politicians they had been critical of. SCOTUS shot that one down unanimously. That's no different to talk show hosts being forced to give equal time to those of an opposing political doctrine.
Obama is gong to have weight the courts very heavily in his favor to even attempt to revive the fairness doctrine. It is wholly unconstitutional.
|
|
What you said may have been true at one time, but I think what everyone is saying, is that
we don't trust the courts anymore than we trust the government of the nincompoops, i.e. Demos.
Schumer is an arrogant twit, and I disagree, he's not intelligent, he just thinks he is. He's a shyster lawyer who couldn't get a decent or honest job so he became a politician.
We have judges now, so full of themselves that they don't need no stinkin' Constitution, they can by pass the Amendment process and make their own laws. Someone told my sis in law right after the election when she mentioned O's abortion policy. This 60 something vet, actually told her abortion had nothing to do with the vote, because it "was the law." That's how stupid our electorate has become..it's the law only because no one challenged the Courts
arrogance in finding "penumbras". I didn't vote
for it, did any American vote for or against it in their respective states? Nope. Now they do when it's entrenched, and no one thinks anything of it..their money is more important that Life, Liberty although they think they have the third
down pat. |
|
|
From a 29 year old white male- Republican vs Democrat, the new RACISM. Being a first time voter, since neither party seems to always have all the answers. I felt a strong desire to vote for Obama, simply because he's seems ten steps ahead of McCain. Growing up around black, mexican, asian people, its seems funny to me to see the fear the older white people (including my parents/grandparents) have towards many of the other races simply because they are not very diverse. Get out of your hole's, I have grown up in a society filled with new rules and changes yearly. Got an underage drinking ticket in high school,$385.00 fine! For drinking on prom night while under the age of 21. Have seen many younger people get felony drug charges that has kept them from getting a descent job, yet they have cleaned up their act with age and maturity yet the felony never goes away. What was the punishment for these crimes 20-30 years ago? A slap on the wrist? New laws and changes are what we are used to and expect. Welcome to our world as we have known it. I'm sure there are many Republican and Democrats that have done much worse but since they are older can simply say they cleaned up. Fairness? My age group has never known a fair world. It's nice to see more rules apply to everyone, not just the youth in their immature days when they had peer pressure and have ruined their lives because of these immature mistakes. Why are our prisons overflowing with youth that are still young enough to make a change in their life? The real Racism to me is DEMOCRATS VS REPUBLICANS. I should be able to vote for Obama for president and McCain for Vice president if I want to. I really doubt Obama is out to hurt the white people when he had a white mother and grandparents that he still adores. Now things did not go your way this year. Idiots, you need to do the growing up and quite complaining. As we have always been told by our elders. Welcome to America as we have known it. |
|
Barack Obama's presidential campaign said that he "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.".
Freedom of Speech?-This is what America is supposed to be about. It is, but the truth is America has never abided by the laws of her constitution. It is seems it has always been amended when cash is involved. |
|
We had the fairness doctrine until a few years ago, and all the terrible consequences some now predict will come with its reinstatement
did not happen-nor was it declared unconstitutional by the supreme court.
This is much ado about nothing. imho.
|
|
We had the fairness doctrine until a few years ago, and all the terrible consequences some now predict will come with its reinstatement
did not happen-nor was it declared unconstitutional by the supreme court.
This is much ado about nothing. imho.
|
|
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LEFT WING LIBERAL AGENDA TO CONTROL THE RADIO AND TV SHOWS...AMERICANS WILL RISE UP TO OVERTHROW THESE COMMUNISTS. I HAVE GIVEN MY LIFE TO THE USA 30 YEARS ARMY AND SWEAR THAT I WILL LEAD THE CHARGE TO DEFEAT THESE INCUMBENTS AND HAVE THEM THROWN IN A TRASHBAG....TO TAKE AWAY YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT AND HAVE THEM CONTROL WHAT YOU SAY WHEN YOU SAY IT...IS NOT DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM...LOOK AT JOE THE PLUMBER ALL HE DID WAS MAKE A COMMENT THE COMMUNISTS/DEMOCRATS ATTACKED HIS FAMILY SAME WITH PALIN..BE CAREFUL SEND MESSAGES TO THESE AIRHEADS THAT THEY BETTER GET REAL...OR WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER CIVIL WAR..
KEEP AN EYE ON THIS NEXT THEY WILL TELL YOU ANOTHER LIBERTY IS UNDER GOVERMENT CONTROL....
I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE NUTS AND THEY ARE COMMUNIST MAKE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT...MARXISTS SOCIALIST...
US ARMY RETIRED HARD |
|
Comparing political speech to pornography is a disgrace to a free society. The implication is that opposing opinions are so perverted that they must be suppressed. If leftist thought can not compete in a free market is should fail. However, Leftist feel that if they can not compete they must silence all other voices. BTW, leftist views are doing very well in media where brains are not needed, i.e. TV journalism. This is were emotions, not rational thought rule.
These Leftist in Government are no better than the communist and fascist of all other totalitarian dictatorships. |
|
If our time is over as you suggest, then why do you need a "fairness" doctrine at all? If you are so convinced that right wing thinking and talk radio is irrelevant, then can you show me any commercially viable left wing talk show? With a few exceptions, the answer is "No". There is no nationally available left wing talk show that is having any commercial success.
Please be honest about the intent of the "Fairness Doctrine", it's not about free speech, it's about the suppression of speech by de-facto censoring of radio stations formats through the limitation of government imposed formatting standards.
Call it what you want, it's Communism. |
|
|
We shouldn't be screaming our heads off as to why this should apply to all media, it shouldn't. Private companies should have the ability to generate, within the bounds of decency standards, any format that they want. If the MSM want's to be all left wing, they should be free to exercise this right. If their ratings and sales go in the toilet because of that, that's their prerogative. We don't need the government to tell us what we want to hear. We need the government to enforce the border and build freeways, after that, they need to stay out of our business. |
|
You write the following as "facts":
1) Republicans whined in the general election that MSM should be forced give equal positive and negative coverage for both candidates irregardless of how the campaigns actually acted.
2) Republicans are now saying that we should allow bias in talk radio, otherwise it is violating the first amendment.
To respond, 1) Republican's never whined that the MSM should be forced to give equal positive and negative. We "whined" that they were giving all negative, but no one suggested that they be "forced" to do anything. 2)Republican's are not saying that we should allow bias in talk radio. Republican's are saying that we should allow private companies to produce their own formats. Why do we need to promote government speech regulations?
To me, the "Fairness Doctrine" is probably the single scariest thing that has been put forward by the liberals lately. When the government can come in and tell us what we can talk about and try to impose it's will upon us, we are in serious trouble. To you lefties out there, I would caution you, the pendulum tends to swing back and forth in politics, and you won't be in power forever. When you kill the freedom to speak in your opposition because you don't like what they're saying, the government will come for you someday too. Those of us on the right are getting pretty tired of having our freedoms taken away, and we're going to get them back.
|
|
... would note more often about this issue is what the (un)Fairness Doctrine does NOT do. It does not provide for Conservative viewpoints on shows like Today, Good Morning America, Nightly News, Larry King or any other show or print publication dominated by liberals.
It's great that they are talking about the effect it will have on talk radio, but let's also show the hypocrisy of these people as they ignore the leftist slant of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times. |
|
"1) Republicans whined in the general election that MSM should be forced give equal positive and negative coverage for both candidates irregardless of how the campaigns actually acted. "
Preamble to the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Jeramy, you do realize there is a big big difference between the NEWS and a TALK SHOW. We were upset with the NEWS because they were not reporting the actual NEWS... Instead the NEWS was promoting their candidate. Straight up til the end of the election culminating with the LA Times suppressing info that was very relevant. If you read the above preamble you'll notice that these Journalists did not ascribe to their own code of ethics...
Now onto the TALK SHOW. Talk shows are not news. They are paid for taxed and part of america. Oprah is also a talk show and while I disagree with her on many things I dont feel she should be forced to talk about what the GOVT wants her to. Its a direct attack on free speech.
So if you can understand that maybe you will change your mind. BTW, as a Dem or Lib or whatever you are you don't have to agree with every single thing that your party promotes. And if you do your more a sheep than anything else.
FINALLY
CONGRATS MICHELE!!!!! We all love you here...
well most of us anyways!!!!!! |
|
I read all of your comments and I have to say that while you might have a little knowledge on Logical fallicies you really don't have a clue what an argument is or how its constructed. First I've yet to see a single formal argument, therefore your touting of big terms like AD Hominem dont fly buddy. You see you need premises and a conclusion.
Ajhil posts rude and crude comments on TH.
All who post rude and crude comments on TH are annoying.
Therefore, Anjhil is annoying.
Now thats a deductive argument. And it seems sound. Its a quick one and Im a bit out of practice but you see what I mean. You can't cry about Ad Hominem when people make a statement, it doesnt work that way.
|
|
Look GOP voters are a bit more informed in their decisions about who to vote for, at least most of us. John McCain had the MSM behind him in the primary, and Mitt Romney had the talk radio,CPAC and many big GOP blog types. The only reason McCain came out on top of Huckabee was the fact that talk radio was trying to dupe their listenership into voting for Romney by acting the same way the MSM acted about Barack. They couldn't rely on his record so they made it all about stump speechs and promises, just like Barack.
READ ME: http://gipperwagon.blogtownhall.com/
They called Huckabee supporters bigots, which is an absolute lie. They called Romney Reagan which is offensive. They said a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain when it was Romney who actually gave his delagates to McCain to put him over the top.
The silver lining of the "fairness" doctrine is that talk radio won't be able to interfere with our primary in 2012. If they would have kept to the facts they could have heloed inform voters but instead they strayed form the principles that gave their medium power and started abusing the trust they formally earned. |
|
|
It appears a lot of you like red herring for dinner |
|
|
Decent people should take to the streets of Washington if this Fairness Doctrine ball gets rolling. This is nothing more the book burning. What's worse, the people who vote for these Democrats don't give a damn about the Constituion, which gives the elected liberal assholes all the cover they need to walk on the First Amendment. |
|
Excellent points!
What liberals do not understand is the DIFFERENCE between journalism (non-biased reporting of the facts) and opinion/editorial.
Until the liberals understand this (do not hold your breath) we conservatives will be under assault via the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Liberals everywhere should be against such an attack on freedom of speech.
Any comment liberal trolls? |
|
For the person who wrote, "What I like about Obama's plan is he is going to invest a lot of American capital into energy technology." I ask,
where does Mr. Obama think he gets the right to "invest a lot of American capital," which isn't his, nor the federal government's, but was produced by private business and industry? That is communism, period.
|
|
|
THE DEMO-RATS WILL TRY TO CONTROL EVERYTHING!HIDE THE CHEESE!PRAY FOR THE CONSERVATIVE CATS! |
|
Michelle writes: Saturday, November, 08, 2008 4:12 AM
I only watch Fox news because I know that even though I will have to listen to the liberal point of view, it will be balanced by conservative views too.
|
|
wbheff writes: Monday, November, 10, 2008 11:47 AM
Shocking statement
For the person who wrote, "What I like about Obama's plan is he is going to invest a lot of American capital into energy technology." I ask,
where does Mr. Obama think he gets the right to "invest a lot of American capital," which isn't his, nor the federal government's, but was produced by private business and industry? That is communism, period.
|
|
wbheff writes: Monday, November, 10, 2008 11:47 AM
Shocking statement
For the person who wrote, "What I like about Obama's plan is he is going to invest a lot of American capital into energy technology." I ask,
where does Mr. Obama think he gets the right to "invest a lot of American capital," which isn't his, nor the federal government's, but was produced by private business and industry? That is communism, period.
So Bush is a commie?
|
|
I'm a progressive (or liberal if you like) and I whole-heartedly oppose the Fairness Doctrine on the basis of freedom of speech.
As far as I know Obama is against the fairness doctrine, he has stated this publicly at lest once. If other democrats try to push it through I hope the Obama administration will oppose them.
If you want to fight this at least go after the people who support it and don't lump all democrats or liberals together b/c there are alot of us who agree with you on this issue and will fight with you. |
|
|
...if we apply it to newspaper editorial pages and school and college classrooms as well. |
|
|
Let's see: Per the Repubs, we have TV, the internet and the print media. They have talk radio. I'd say that's a fair trade. Besides, Obama could care less about talk radio. It couldn't stop him from getting elected this time, why would he be worried about it 4 years from now? As for Schumer, he and his colleagues have seem to have thin skin. They should remember, they are in power and this fairness doctrine business should not affect that. It's useless legislation anyway. This past election should prove just how ineffective right-wing talk radio was on the outcome. Let the angry white men have their talk radio to vent on. As long as Obama, the House and Senate get the economy back on track, real health care reform and manage both wars effectively while bringing Bin Ladin to justice, right wing talk radio will go the way of the Dodo bird. |
|
The FCC can only apply the Fairness Doctrine to stations that broadcast over the public airwaves. That's where their source of power comes from, in the regulation of a scarce public resource.
The FCC cannot govern content in print media or anything on cable TV or at this point on satellite radio although I don't know why since it broadcasts. |
|
|
So this ambulance-chasing New York sleazeball equates opinions he doesn't agree with to pornography? Thanks to all you morons who helped put these fascists in power last Tuesday! |
|
I am conducting a political survey for an Applied Research and Methods class at Auburn University at Montgomery. I would really appreciate it if some of you townhall folks would take it. It takes only a couple of minutes at most to take. I am getting way more Democrats and liberals responding to the survey so far so I really need some conservatives to take the survey. I thank you in advance.
Please go to this url:
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2ddb71eflpisn2 r/start
Please choose an answer for every question. Your response to this survey is both anonymous and confidential.
|
|
|
They control the schools, the unions, most paper and televised media, and now they want the airwaves. |
|
.. in Schumer's comment.
The Left is going to make the point that the Govt ALREADY limits free speech - by placing restrictions on pornography.
They are using it to give them cover, so that they can place MORE limits on free speech in the form of the Fairness Doctrine.
So, is there a argument that demolishes this 'precedent'? At this point, I'm not looking for a LEGAL argument - but to find an argument that works in the court of public opinion.
Unfortunately, after Nov 4th 2008, I no longer trust that the 'American Public' will see the danger of Leftist ideology. As long as we have a majority of stupid people, who can be led to believe that "after Barack wins, I no longer have to worry about putting gas in my car, or paying for healthcare", we can expect monstrosities like the Fairness Doctrine to become real.
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to counter Schumer's idiotic point? Not by calling it idiotic - which it is - but in a way that refutes the idea that Govt has already curtailed free speech by limiting porn?
What we need is a simple analogy or explanation, that makes even the 'other' 52% of the public understand that the 'porn' analogy is false.
Pornography/violence/gore is an area in which we voluntarily accept limits because _____ [please fill in the blanks]. Whereas, political opinion does not have to be limited, because _____ [please fill in the blanks].
BTW, I think that BHO is too politically astute to raise this issue directly. He probably figures that issues like the Fairness Doctrine or Card Check could become his 'gays in the military'. |
|
There's something missing in this....Bachman is against the Fairness doctrine...actually saying that a democracy, which by definition must rely on people being exposed to many ideas, should not make sure that the public airways cover multiple points of view?
It sounds like Bachman is more interested in some totalitarian government than a democracy.
I find it incredibly embarrassing that a member of the Republican party, which for quite a while was a major political party in the US, would take this position.
!!! |
|
All view points are available to the public. If you want the liberal view point you have ABC, NBC,CBS,MSNBC,CNN, Most large newspapers in the USA, many many periodicals in the USA. You act like talk radio is the only place one can hear a side of the story.
Considering some folks are coming out and ADMITTING that their coverage was biased during the presidential election, are we now going to have the fairness doctrine in all of our media outlets during presidential elections? More importantly WHO will be the judge of what is fair and what is not?
Two different democratic presidents have managed to get elected during the popularity of talk radio, I dont see talk radio being as influential as the media outlets mentioned above. I guess it is just like fingernails on a chalkboard when certain politician's actions, views and votes are made public and they would rather censor their critics than take the heat...so much for the first amendment (which if I read correctly, mentions nothing about "fairness" ... |
|
Under the rule of King Obama and his royal family, we true conservatives will witness the progression from Star Spangled Banner to the white flag of surrender and appeasement. We will be there when the National Security Force comes for our guns and homes in the name of the State. We will die defending the Constitution as written with the blood of our forefathers in the aftermath of the King’s broad confiscation, taxation and censorship of any opposing view. We will watch as our country sinks under the waves of stifled innovation, retarded growth and stagflation. Our monetary system will become even more of a joke on itself and the net worth of most Americans will be nothing because all will be the state’s property and permission to live there will only be given to supporters of the socialist manifesto as prescribed by Princess Nancy and Prince Harry. The socialist government redistributors will then step in and rule every aspect of your lives. This is the scary vision of the future under the rule of King Obama and his royal court. Now I understand that old Che slogan that every liberal loves to quote, “One man’s Terrorist is another man’s Freedom Fighter.” In these times we may get to see that being said by conservatives very soon.
|
|
|
I think your appeasing statments are nice but instead of considering why it doesnt matter consider the actual attempt of the left to silence political thought. Sounds like a play from Chavezs book. I don't think you have heard much right wing radio becaues you seem to think everyone is so angry. The truth is far from that. For this reason alone I rarely venture to Rhodes. I dont get her. She is foul. This is also the same reason I can't stand that goofball Michael Savage. Hes obnoxious and yes ANGY! Prager, Hewitt, Medved, Ingram, Gallagher and others are very fair minded and kind to all listeners. Give them a chance or even call the show and debate them on something. |
|
Isn't the FCC a government agency? Is there really a NEED to police radio and TV beyond the FCC?
This is exactly the problem I've run into with every liberal I've ever encountered when speaking of a particular issue. Like the Senator, they are completely unable (or unwilling) to distinguish the baby from the bathwater. It seems a quantum leap in reasoning to go from allowing talk radio that targets a certain market to broadcasting pornography. |
|
Sen. Schumer, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Obama, et alia:
I am in a better position to make a decision precisely because I do not consume your propaganda. I get my news from the Internet and I listen to talk radio.
I am not interested in your viewpoint except to defeat it. I am not interested in your opinion except to the extent that it intrudes on my freedom.
|
|
"Why are you all so scared???????
Nothing has happened yet -- All this woman does is raise unproven red flags and you all believe her. Are you all really that stupid?"
You sound like Lord Haw Haw in world War II - his job was also to discourage the will to fight and encourage dissension among the allies.
And he was also a Nazi fascist traitor.
Michelle takes them at their word - i.e. Shumer, et al. Are YOU really that stupid.
|
|
"I am not interested in your viewpoint except to defeat it. I am not interested in your opinion except to the extent that it intrudes on my freedom."
Quite right - if you were associating and conversing with someone of your choice, how would you like someone like Terry constantly interrupting with his ad hominems and stupid nonsense. You see, the whole idea of 'fairness' here is to disrupt and end the conversation - because they don't like it.
With regard to the so called 'fairness doctrine', under which nothing is 'fair'', not only is freedom of speech under assault but freedom of association as well.
In the same vein, fair union elections will be destroyed under the so called Employee Fair Choice act where the secret ballot is eliminated. Employees would be subject to pressures that he would not otherwise have to deal with should his vote be private.
Whenever the left uses the word 'fair', look for a biased rat and be prepared to kill it. |
|
|
Arrogance. Holy crap! Schumer shows his disdain for FOX and any other medium who does not agree with him. This guy actually made a joke out of the question, I am speechless.... |
|
|
Lets see, are ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS and other liberal news programs going to show equal and balanced views on their programs. Conservatives have FOX news and talk radio, liberals have every other medium except the internet with has all kinds of view points. The so called main stream media do not report the news they editorialize with is why so many people no longer watch them. When it comes to the battle of ideas they lose, so instead they try to stop the conversation under the guise of fairness. They don't like our ideas, they don't believe we should have a voice unless it falls in line with the garbage they want us to hear. Shumer equates conservative radio with pornography, he should be sued by every conservative radio host for slander. This man is not fit to be Senator, he should be impeached for failing to uphold his oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, he is the enemy of the Constitution he is always attacking freedom of speech, the 2nd amendment and numerous other infractions. We need to hold elected officials responsible when they violate the public trust and our constitution. |
|
|
with public media outlets lending a voice to both sides. If these right wing nuts on the radio can go on and on about how much they hate Obama, lefties should be able to do the same. If you don't wanna hear one side or the other, flip the station or pop in a CD. Ditto for cable news networks, who all have a bias. Why are Republicans shaking in their boots over this? relax. |
|
|
Don't worry, Sarah will correct this BS when she becomes president. We need to reinforce and hunker down for the next four years until Sarah arrives and saves us from these democrazies. |
|
Liberals DO have the opportunity to have their say on talk radio...trouble is no one listens to their shows so they aren't profitable.
That's the Free Market at it's absolute BEST!
|
|
|
I can't believe that we're discussing the Fairness Doctrine again. I thought that this issue was put to bed in 2007. While lawyers may uphold the legality of the Fairness Doctrine, I think that the point has been made that there are enough media outlets at present that, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum--liberal, conservative, statist, centrist, libetarian--there is a source that represents your viewpoint. My taxpayer dollars would be better spent if Sen. Schumer could explain to me when, exactly, does inflation become hyper-inflation and when does a recession become a depression. (On second thought, maybe I'd better ask Ron Paul.) |
|
What is up with Minnesota? We are proving to be as obtuse as Texans. Why do we feel the need to elect racist, anti-democracy, reactionary evangelicals? Go Michele Bachmann, just keep saying the tape of you accusing Obama of being anti-American is an urban legend. Palin - Bachmann in 2012.
See it at http://crooksandliars.com/node/24155 |
|