The Fairness doctrine

[WRESTLINGFAN]

From what I've heard about this, Congress wants to re implement this so there will be equal time for dissent, especially for talk radio. IMO people choose what they want to listen to, Yes there are a ton of talk shows like Rush and Hannity but there are alternatives to them like Air America, NPR and Pacifica Radio WBAI 99.5 in New York. Why should the governent step in then? Let the people choose what they want to listen to

[Bob Impact]

You need to explain this a little more clearly, but i'll say this; there is no possiblity for fairness when you attempt to claim it at the expense of the individual. <span class="post_edited"></span>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Bob Impact on 1-19-07 @ 10:06 PM</span>

[cougarjake13]

<p>^{<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">i heard about this yesterday</font>}</p><p>^{<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">its bullshit if one aspect of a business venture works but a competitor doesnt then that means the people have spoken and dont care about the other, so why should the govt step in and say we'll bail you out for the sack of competition </font>}</p><p>^{<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">i forget who was saying it but the example i heard was what if xm was kicking ass and had millions and millions of subscribers while sirius just wasnt picking up too many subscribers and was looking to either sell or fold and then the govt jumps in to bail them out</font>}</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>^{<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font>}</p>

[Jujubees2]

<font size="2"><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">The difference between regular radio and satellite is that the government OWNS the regular airwaves and gives licenses to companies to use them.&nbsp; Therefore, the government can step in and do what it pleases.</span></p></font>

[Dan 'Hampton]

I'm completely against the government intervening in what we can watch or listen too.&nbsp;&nbsp; If people want to hear liberal or decenting opinion there is plenty of it out there to watch/listen too.&nbsp; Where I live it's almost all there is on TV/or radio.&nbsp; Does that mean that the government will force companys to put on programing that no one wants to listen too?&nbsp; Everyone thought that the Reps were the ones to fear when it came to interfering with media. Face it the Dems are just as bad.&nbsp; They both are trying to cater to middle america who doesn't want to see or hear anything outside the norm.&nbsp; You think that if Al Gore was in the White HOuse during the &quot;Wardrobe Malfunction&quot; it would have been just glazed over and nothing would have been made of it?

[Yerdaddy]

<p>Nowhere in this thread is there any mention of what the fairness doctrine is and is not. You've all missed the point. </p><p>And if you want to know why the fairness doctrine seems like a good idea now it's because <strong>Iraq seemed like a good idea four years ago</strong>! Some pieces of&nbsp;shit have&nbsp;been passing off&nbsp;ideological propaganda as news and we're&nbsp;eating&nbsp;it up with a spoon. Even now, after it's given us Iraq.&nbsp;Maybe we're just too fucking stupid for free speech?&nbsp;</p>

[moochcassidy]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Nowhere in this thread is there any mention of what the fairness doctrine is and is not. You've all missed the point. </p><p>And if you want to know why the fairness doctrine seems like a good idea now it's because <font size="3"><strong>Iraq seemed like a good idea four years ago</strong></font>! Some pieces of shit have been passing off ideological propaganda as news and we're eating it up with a spoon. Even now, after it's given us Iraq. Maybe we're just too fucking stupid for free speech? </p><p>no it didnt. </p><p>the majority of people (globally) were against even going in. </p>

[boeman]

<strong>moochcassidy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Nowhere in this thread is there any mention of what the fairness doctrine is and is not. You've all missed the point. </p><p>And if you want to know why the fairness doctrine seems like a good idea now it's because <font size="3"><strong>Iraq seemed like a good idea four years ago</strong></font>! Some pieces of shit have been passing off ideological propaganda as news and we're eating it up with a spoon. Even now, after it's given us Iraq. Maybe we're just too fucking stupid for free speech? </p><p>no it didnt. </p><p>the majority of people (globally) were against even going in. </p><p>yeah... it was the first time my dad and I had very different views on US policy. Usually are views are slightly different, but not usually this much... since then, our views have had a few other drastic differences. But that's what happens when a person gets to sit around and watch cable news all day... it's all about towing the &quot;White House&quot; line on all 3 of the big cable news networks when it comes to a war that will bring them some good ratings.</p>

[epo]

<p>In the last 30 years three major things have changed broadcasting:</p><ol><li>The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.</li><li>The end of localism in broadcasting.</li><li>The end of ownership restrictions.</li></ol><p>All have been done by the federal government to appease their corporate masters.&nbsp; None have been done to improve the quality of individuals knowledge.</p><p>The Fairness Doctrine (or a limited version of it) would be a good start for broadcasters to start to earn the trust of the public back.&nbsp; The media corporations won't wanna do it as it might cut their profits a bit.&nbsp; </p>