Fairness Doctrine

[nelson]

Just some random opinionated banter.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was conceived back in the heyday of radio broadcasting, when there was concern about limited radio frequency space. In short, there weren't enough radio frequencies for everyone to have a voice, so the Fairness Doctrine would prevent a few broadcasters from politically monopolizing the technology. This concept may have been understandable when introduced, but it was later repealed with good reason. Of course, today it's irrelevant; there are now infinite opportunities within television, digital broadcasting, print media, and the Internet for virtually anyone to advertise their point of view.

But unfortunately, after television had thoroughly trumped radio, but before the advent of digital broadcasting and the Internet, there were decades during which a broadcast media monopoly did in fact help to politically imbalance the country. We could have used the Fairness Doctrine then, while people still had relatively few sources of news and information. Over time, combining with universities, the public school system, and even Hollywood, television media re-portrayed American history, instilling guilt into the psyches of citizens, leaving them gullible to further manipulation. Our government was increasingly portrayed to be a democracy, that form of government in which a highly manipulable (and mobbish) majority rules - the very system our founders deliberately avoided. Social revolution was incited. Entitlements became the new currency of political power, devaluing principle. All of this damage has already been done.

Despite having driven the country's agenda in this way, the extreme wing of the Democrat party is today very unhappy that alternative viewpoints exist. Some turn to the Fairness Doctrine, with the hope of utilizing it to stamp out strong voices of opposition.

In any shift toward totalitarianism, a government that perceives itself to be strong will at some point move to limit opposing viewpoints. It will be interesting to see if this new Congress thinks now is the time to make this move.

[The G]

IF this was an issue it could have been corrected when you control the votes. Seeing that its wasn't address by your administration this doesn't amount a hill of beans or a lot of talking with no substance. If you do a search most if the information media is owned by Republicans with the exception of our beloved CNN :)

[MYCAR47562]

Im About As Pro-gun As You Can Get But The Thought Of Anybody Suporting Such A Act Pushes Me Over The Edge. No I Dont Think It Will Happen But Dont Think I Will Forget About It If/whenever It Is Mentioned Ill Be Listening To Whats Said.

[MYCAR47562]

IF this was an issue it could have been corrected when you control the votes. Seeing that its wasn't address by your administration this doesn't amount a hill of beans or a lot a lot of talking with no substance. If you do a search most if the information media is owned by Republicans with the exception of our beloved CNN :)

ALWAYS DENY ALWAYS DENY IS THAT WHAT THEY TAUGHT YOU IN SCHOOL. BECAUSE ANYBODY THAT SAYS SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT YOUR PARTY IS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT. WHY IS THAT?

[The G]

if it was an issue why did they fix it ??????? this is an easy one :deal:

[MYCAR47562]

well kerry thinks we should reinstate the rule

[Remphoto]

if it was an issue why did they fix it ??????? this is an easy one :deal:

It has been fixed since Reagan did away with it in the 1980's. The fear is based on past comments by some prominent Democrats that a Democrat controlled Congress/White House will ram through a return of this Act. In doing so this so called "Hush Rush" Act will cut off the main voice of dissent (talk radio) or at least diminish its influence by driving it to satellite. The Libs already editorially control most of the mainstream media except for Fox.

The same fear of returned restrictions on so-called assault weapons and handguns has driven sales through the roof since the election.

Are these fear irrational? I do not know, but by the time we find out, it will be too late so the alarm is being sounded now.

[MYCAR47562]

It has been fixed since Reagan did away with it in the 1980's. The fear is based on past comments by some prominent Democrats that a Democrat controlled Congress/White House will ram through a return of this Act. In doing so this so called "Hush Rush" Act will cut off the main voice of dissent (talk radio) or at least diminish its influence by driving it to satellite. The Libs already editorially control most of the mainstream media except for Fox.

The same fear of returned restrictions on so-called assault weapons and handguns has driven sales through the roof since the election.
Are these fear irrational? I do not know, but by the time we find out, it will be too late so the alarm is being sounded now.

THANK YOU FOR CALLING THEM SO CALLED ASSUALT WEAPONS, AND FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW THE AK'S AND AR'S THAT CITIZENS OWN ARE NOT ASSUALT WEAPONS THERE JUST MILITARY LOOK ALIKE'S, HUNTING RIFLES MADE TO LOKE LIKE THE REAL THING

[The G]

I hope I don't I have to listen more Rush. Hes a nut case !!!!!!!

[cajun]

This is America "G" you don't have to listen to anything you don't want to. Your just pissed because Air America could'nt make it, even after stealing the boy scouts money.. Very few people want to listen to liberal drivel, including the libs.

[The G]

I don't know what Air America is !!!

Let me check this out

[The G]

Looks like my kind of place :)

http://airamerica.com/

[MYCAR47562]

Ah Crap Now We Are Going To Be Listening To Sounds Clips For The Next 2 Months Lol Just Messing With Ya G

[Engels]

the extreme wing of the Democrat party is today very unhappy that alternative viewpoints exist.

This whole "Fairness Doctrine" is nothing but a risible straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), put about by know-nothing Conservative blow-hards like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.

The fact of the matter is that there is precisely ZERO chance of this Congress, or any other, doing anything to resurrect or re-invent the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The Democratic party platform makes no mention of any such interest, the President-Elect would no doubt veto any such legislation, and the Supreme Court would overturn any such law enacted. The ACLU (those "zombies", apparently incapable of coherent thought, according to one of the people who posts here) would also fight any such legislation tooth and nail.

The dumbasses listed above (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) would like to present themselves as embattled truth-tellers fighting against government oppression - when in actual fact they have been filling the emtpy skulls of impressionable American dullards with hate and lies. Just read some of the nonsense people put on up this forum for more examples. Even Rupert Murdoch (Chairman of the corporation that owns Fox News) is embarassed and ashamed of what Fox News has become.

Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. have a lot to answer for. But the Fairness Doctrine is not going to reappear in any form whatsoever.

[Remphoto]

This whole "Fairness Doctrine" is nothing but a risible straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), put about by know-nothing Conservative blow-hards like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.

The fact of the matter is that there is precisely ZERO chance of this Congress, or any other, doing anything to resurrect or re-invent the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The Democratic party platform makes no mention of any such interest, the President-Elect would no doubt veto any such legislation, and the Supreme Court would overturn any such law enacted. The ACLU (those "zombies", apparently incapable of coherent thought, according to one of the people who posts here) would also fight any such legislation tooth and nail.

The dumbasses listed above (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) would like to present themselves as embattled truth-tellers fighting against government oppression - when in actual fact they have been filling the emtpy skulls of impressionable American dullards with hate and lies. Just read some of the nonsense people put on up this forum for more examples. Even Rupert Murdoch (Chairman of the corporation that owns Fox News) is embarassed and ashamed of what Fox News has become.

Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. have a lot to answer for. But the Fairness Doctrine is not going to reappear in any form whatsoever.



Engels, you really need to get over this name calling and denigration of people on this forum. You won't hurt our feelings as we just consider the source, but it probably is pushing your blood pressure into the stratosphere.:D

[Engels]

I'd have more respect for some of the conservative viewpoints if

a) They were concerned with real, significant issues

b) They were more than just sorry rehashings of the sort of blather pumped out by the Talk Radio/NewsMax/Fox News axis

and

c) They did not universally suffer from severe deficiencies in foundational logic.

So far I've seen little more than absurd whining about Barack Obama's citizenship; paranoid delusions about gun control; griping about the ACLU, etc.

I'm old enough to remember (fondly) the days when Conservatives were represented by people like William F. Buckley. But for at least the last twenty years or so, conservativism seems to be dominated by a race to the intellectual bottom. And without naming any names - many of the posts I've read seem to reflect that.

[Remphoto]

Funny you would mention WFB. He is one of my personal heros and I have read every book, fiction and non-fiction, I could find. In fact, just read a delightful biography of the Buckley family by his brother Reid. Much of the conservative Buckley thought is expressed by some of the "axis" you mentioned though there are obviously some issues where they differed in recent years. Rush Limbaugh and Buckley were good friends and Limbaugh has long been a student of Buckley's philosophy. Obviously their presentation is different with Limbaugh more of a showman, which he readily admits. For all his intellect, Buckley never took himself too seriously, something more of us (myself included) should consider.

[nelson]

I am very tolerant of name calling, because in reality it says a lot about the person calling the names. It takes a sort of courage to stand on a limb and make your case; it takes none to try to destroy someone who is doing so.

I think conservatives are indeed concerned with real, significant issues. Since this thread is about the Fairness Doctrine, I won't defend conservatives here. If someone started a thread bashing conservatives, I'd chime in over there.

Here's why the prospect of a Fairness Doctrine is scary. Imagine playing soccer with 2 players on your team. You are going up against a full squad of 11 players. That's what it's like to be a conservative today - there are very few conservative voices in the mainstream media, very few in the entertainment industry, and almost none in the public school and university systems. Case in point; whenever anyone attacks conservative media, there are three specific names they mention. So of course conservatives see the prospect of the Fairness Doctrine as a major threat, while non-conservatives don't consider it an important issue. Conservative voices have a lot more to lose.

Engels I hope you're right about the Fairness Doctrine not reappearing. It's a pretty stupid idea.

[MYCAR47562]

Important Issue's? Im Guessing The Only Important Issue's For You Are Saving The Spotted Owl.? Im Glad Your Happy With Your Party. But They Do Not Have The Same Belief's As Me.