Equal time?

[SP1!]

Senators pushing for return of equal-time rules (http://fe13.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/nm/20081126/tv_nm/us_fairness?fark)

Do people really think that the fairness doctrine is a good idea? Or is it just a way to stop right wing talk radio?

I know it may shock most of you here but I dont listen to limbaugh, hannity, or O'reilly and think most of what they say is bullshit but is it right to stifle their shows just because they feel an opposing view has to be aired?

I think they already tried that once with air america and it failed.

[epo]

For the 900th time:

The Fairness Doctrine "equal time" model does not equate the 1 to 1 "equal" time. It simply requires a balance of voice. Said voice can be at 4am in the morning.

I'm sooooooo sick of this.

[Furtherman]

Senators pushing for return of equal-time rules (http://fe13.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/nm/20081126/tv_nm/us_fairness?fark)

Do people really think that the fairness doctrine is a good idea? Or is it just a way to stop right wing talk radio?

I know it may shock most of you here but I dont listen to limbaugh, hannity, or O'reilly and think most of what they say is bullshit but is it right to stifle their shows just because they feel an opposing view has to be aired?

I think they already tried that once with air america and it failed.

You know who thinks the fairness doctrine will stifle them? Conservative radio. You know who is telling their dittoheads that? Conservative radio. This was already discussed here. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1975059&highlight=fairness#post1975059)

So whoever you are listening to... they're wrong too.

[Gvac]

It's a silly (and unnecessary) doctrine.

All the right wing talk radio hosts had a big impact this last election, huh?

The less legislation the better.

Let the people decide.

[epo]

The less legislature the better.

Let the people decide.

And yet you want a Cool Kids Forum and Mod Term Limits?

[SP1!]

For the 900th time:

The Fairness Doctrine "equal time" model does not equate the 1 to 1 "equal" time. It simply requires a balance of voice. Said voice can be at 4am in the morning.

I'm sooooooo sick of this.
Do you think people would stop at just offering a voice for "balance of voice"? I think most people would demand equal amount of airtime even if the station would lose money, dont you think that would happen? Even if they allow you to get on the air to counterpoint rush they would still demand the same amount of time that he is on the air, isnt that like 3 or 4 hours? I know here in atlanta hes on till 1 I think, I have no idea what time he starts though.

You know who thinks the fairness doctrine will stifle them? Conservative radio. You know who is telling their dittoheads that? Conservative radio. This was already discussed here. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1975059&highlight=fairness#post1975059)

So whoever you are listening to... they're wrong too.
Well I wasnt listening to anyone, its a yahoo article that I was reading.

[Gvac]

And yet you want a Cool Kids Forum and Mod Term Limits?

Hmmm....

Let me ponder this.

Thank you for an intelligent, thought provoking post.

[Furtherman]

Well I wasnt listening to anyone, its a yahoo article that I was reading.

Did the "yahoo" article say "it just a way to stop right wing talk radio?" or did it mention that Hannity and Rush have been crying about it everyday?

[scottinnj]

What's the ! for in your handle, SP1!?

Oh, and what's the SP1 part stand for?

[DarkHippie]

I think that it is a good idea, in that it keeps a network's political views from over influencing its programming. Even better would be if each show had a fact checker and ombudsman.

[DonInNC]

Right wing radio has been sufficiently marginalized, bringing back the fairness doctrine will just give them an issue to rally around.

[Devo37]

the problem with any sort of "fairness doctrine" is that they assume that there are only 2 sides to an issue (generally democrat vs. republican). in reality, for every issue, there are dozens of opposing opinions. does a radio/tv station have to represent every possible opinion? where is the line drawn? it's a stupid concept.

[Tallman388]

The less legislation the better.

Let the people decide.

Amen!!

It's nice to give people equal time for their voice to be heard, but forcing it on the masses just creates a backlash that reverses the so-called progress it imposes.

[scottinnj]

the problem with any sort of "fairness doctrine" is that they assume that there are only 2 sides to an issue (generally democrat vs. republican). in reality, for every issue, there are dozens of opposing opinions. does a radio/tv station have to represent every possible opinion? where is the line drawn? it's a stupid concept.



Yes, good point. I believe in Chevys. My dad believes in Toyotas. But there are people who think we both should die in a biological weapons attack, so where is their equal time?
And what about the options you can get in a Chevy vs. a Toyota? THINK OF THE OPTION PACKAGES PEOPLE!!!

[Devo37]

Yes, good point. I believe in Chevys. My dad believes in Toyotas. But there are people who think we both should die in a biological weapons attack, so where is their equal time?
And what about the options you can get in a Chevy vs. a Toyota? THINK OF THE OPTION PACKAGES PEOPLE!!!

well, you believe in a company that's going down the drain (that we're all gonna be paying for for decades to come), and your father believes in a company whose cars people actually want to buy. but that's besides the point...

i'd like to hear the opinion of a diabetic, pro-life, half hispanic/half native-american, left-handed hitting, right-handed kicking, near-sighted midget. the fairness doctrine demands that i know all sides of the issue.


p.s. the U2 War boy never seemed so creepy until i saw it as an avatar. it almost seems nsfw, lest co-workers think rf.net is some sort of nambla site if they see it.

[scottinnj]

i'd like to hear the opinion of a diabetic, pro-life, half hispanic/half native-american, left-handed hitting, right-handed kicking, near-sighted midget. the fairness doctrine demands that i know all sides of the issue.



And what of the submariners? They are underwater 9 months a year. THEY DEMAND TO BE HEARD! Damn the torpedoes! Up periscope and DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!

[scottinnj]

p.s. the U2 War boy never seemed so creepy until i saw it as an avatar. it almost seems nsfw, lest co-workers think rf.net is some sort of nambla site if they see it.




Thanks for recognizing it. One of my favorite albums.

Edit: Come to think of it, you have a point. That pic was for the re-release of Boy, but since I've been switching my avatars with U2 themes lately, it was just a good time to update it again.

[epo]

I would like to provide a little context for the Fairness Doctrine.

It was originally part of a rewrite of the 1934 Communications Act that called for regulation ONLY "to the extent marketplace forces are deficient". The assertion by the FCC for 50 years that the Act was not to affect content, but provide "diversity" of opinion on issues. It was repeatedly asserted that diversity of media content and control was in the public interest. This prevented media concentration and editorial control.

You see the radio waves are owned by the public and not individual corporations. Hence, you and I own them. So corporations have to obtain licenses for them....in the same way that a liquor store obtains a liquor license. As a citizenry we asked that they follow a set of rules and they did for 50 years until Reagan threw those rules away.

Amongst the things that left town after that deregulation were media concentration (how many corporations own the airwaves?), localization and coverage of local interests and a concentration of ideas.

Nobody who is reasonable and asking for the Fairness Doctrine to be revisited is asking that Rush go away. Or that talk radio be 50/50. Just provide the citizenry some form of "diversity" of ideas. Remember, we own the airwaves...not the corporations.

[Devo37]

Come to think of it, you have a point. That pic was for the re-release of Boy, but since I've been switching my avatars with U2 themes lately, it was just a good time to update it again.

thaaaank you. much better now.

[SP1!]

Did the "yahoo" article say "it just a way to stop right wing talk radio?" or did it mention that Hannity and Rush have been crying about it everyday?
I really dont understand your fascination with posting that every time I post, I dont listen to any right wing talk shows, I hate limbaugh, think hannity is over the top, and o'reilly's show just sucks. The only one I listen to every once in a while is boortz cause hes local and hes not nearly as right wing as the rest but even hes too much for me and gets grating with his love of himself.

What's the ! for in your handle, SP1!?

Oh, and what's the SP1 part stand for?
Well I was steamingpile on FBA but when I registered here a while ago, it wouldnt let me use that so I just varied it a little, the exclamation was just because jimmy was yelling something at the time.

the problem with any sort of "fairness doctrine" is that they assume that there are only 2 sides to an issue (generally democrat vs. republican). in reality, for every issue, there are dozens of opposing opinions. does a radio/tv station have to represent every possible opinion? where is the line drawn? it's a stupid concept.
That is my biggest problem with that, how do you make time for everyone's viewpoint? You would have a endless broadcast of rebuttals, that and I dont think anyone should be forced to broadcast anyone.

Nobody who is reasonable and asking for the Fairness Doctrine to be revisited is asking that Rush go away. Or that talk radio be 50/50. Just provide the citizenry some form of "diversity" of ideas. Remember, we own the airwaves...not the corporations.
Oh I agree with most of that, but I do feel some people are looking to curb talk radio influence, not make it go away just trying to force their views on the airwaves. Im more capitalistic, if it sells then broadcast it, if not then dont, its that simple.

And technically they lease the airways and if you think that the FCC is going to take that cash cow away anytime soon youre crazy.

Personally I have listened to both sides of talk and realized they are usually full of shit on both sides, its why I no longer listen the double speak and selective stats give me a headache.

[sailor]

For the 900th time:

The Fairness Doctrine "equal time" model does not equate the 1 to 1 "equal" time. It simply requires a balance of voice. Said voice can be at 4am in the morning.

I'm sooooooo sick of this.

for the 903rd time, that's redundant.

[EliSnow]

Hmmm....

Let me ponder this.

Thank you for an intelligent, thought provoking post.

Which means "I'm going to log off, drink a beer, batch, and forget I ever saw this post."

[NewYorkDragons80]

Here's my only problem with the fairness doctrine:
Eventually, we're gonna have to give equal time to animals. Now you might like watching a 2 minute editorial of a cow struggling to speak, but I say "no thank you."

[SP1!]

My only real problem is stations being forced to do it and I have a bad feeling someone will end up bastardizing its intent, I dont think they will be able to force it through though.

I just want less government in our lives, its why I hated bush and disappointed in republicans in general.

[Ritalin]

It's a silly (and unnecessary) doctrine.

All the right wing talk radio hosts had a big impact this last election, huh?

The less legislation the better.

Let the people decide.

And yet you want a Cool Kids Forum and Mod Term Limits?

face

[NewYorkDragons80]

face

I've been here for over seven years, and that might be the best gotcha I've ever seen

[FezsAssistant]

Why should the Fairness Doctrine only apply to radio?
I think we would have to have another 200 channels of 'conservative' TV programming to balance out the 200+ 'liberal' stations already on. Or at least make it 100/100, instead of 199/1.

Same with print media. We have to be fair, right?

It's suspicious that the liberals only want this applied to the media type in which they aren't in full control of. Kind of fishy to me.

Also, to force radio stations to air shows that people don't want to listen to would be bad business. Would the government subsidize the stations to make up for the lost advertising revenue?

[epo]

Why should the Fairness Doctrine only apply to radio?
I think we would have to have another 200 channels of 'conservative' TV programming to balance out the 200+ 'liberal' stations already on. Or at least make it 100/100, instead of 199/1.

Same with print media. We have to be fair, right?

It's suspicious that the liberals only want this applied to the media type in which they aren't in full control of. Kind of fishy to me.

Also, to force radio stations to air shows that people don't want to listen to would be bad business. Would the government subsidize the stations to make up for the lost advertising revenue?

No, no and no. Let me explain the differences:

Broadcast radio & television operate because of the government owned airwaves, hence they have an inherent responsibility to the owner...the people.

Print media operates because of the printing press which is owned by the individual company. So it is responsible to itself and its mission. Cable television providers and satellite radio also fall under this umbrella.

[EliSnow]

No, no and no. Let me explain the differences:

Broadcast radio & television operate because of the government owned airwaves, hence they have an inherent responsibility to the owner...the people.

Print media operates because of the printing press which is owned by the individual company. So it is responsible to itself and its mission. Cable television providers and satellite radio also fall under this umbrella.

Bingo. Broadcast radio and tv have a host of responsibilities placed on them because the airwaves they broadcast on are owned by the government.

[sailor]

personally, i've always disagreed with government ownership of airwaves.

[EliSnow]

personally, i've always disagreed with government ownership of airwaves.

I think it was best for public good for the government to do so. Otherwise you would have had numerous groups broadcasting over the same frequencies, cancelling out signals. The public actually benefitted more from the government's ownership than they would have otherwise.

[sailor]

I think it was best for public good for the government to do so. Otherwise you would have had numerous groups broadcasting over the same frequencies, cancelling out signals. The public actually benefitted more from the government's ownership than they would have otherwise.

i don't know. we allow private ownership of property and any completing claims get sorted out. you don't worry about two people trying to build their house on the same parcel of land.

[EliSnow]

i don't know. we allow private ownership of property and any completing claims get sorted out. you don't worry about two people trying to build their house on the same parcel of land.

That's because one person has title to the land and once occupied can fend for themselves. It's harder to own a frequency where own person can broadcast on it in manhattan and another in the bronx and they can cancel each other.

Plus I think the duties the government demands from the licensees (the news, etc) were things that benefit the public.

[sailor]

That's because one person has title to the land and once occupied can fend for themselves. It's harder to own a frequency where own person can broadcast on it in manhattan and another in the bronx and they can cancel each other.

Plus I think the duties the government demands from the licensees (the news, etc) were things that benefit the public.

but, don't you have those same difficulties with leasing the airwaves? you have to set standards of how far they need to be apart and what strength the signals can be broadcast at.

[EliSnow]

but, don't you have those same difficulties with leasing the airwaves? you have to set standards of how far they need to be apart and what strength the signals can be broadcast at.

No. First, it's not a lease, it's a license so the government's ownership rights are greater and if someone without a license starts broadcasting, it's the government that pursues and enforces. If a company was the owner of a bandwidth and someone broadcasts along the same bandwidth, it has to go to civil suits. that takes time and money. The government doesn't have those worries.

[earthbrown]

For the 900th time:

The Fairness Doctrine "equal time" model does not equate the 1 to 1 "equal" time. It simply requires a balance of voice. Said voice can be at 4am in the morning.

I'm sooooooo sick of this.


hey silly....

ok, so my local station plays Glen Beck(9am-11am),Bob Lonsberry(11a-2p), Limbaugh(2pm-5pm) and Savage(9pm-11pm) and Hannity (11pm-1am). SO thats 13hrs of "Conservative" programming, which is paid for by commercial interests that run spots during those shows.

They have a news/talk morning show, and a few hours of news each day, how would they support this "equal" time?

The liberals own print and television media, and conservatives own radio, I dont see the issue.




K

[NewYorkDragons80]

I think it was best for public good for the government to do so. Otherwise you would have had numerous groups broadcasting over the same frequencies, cancelling out signals. The public actually benefitted more from the government's ownership than they would have otherwise.
Government should be a mediator for obvious issues like that, but that shouldn't make it the "owner" of airwaves or give it the power to dictate programming standards.

[EliSnow]

Government should be a mediator for obvious issues like that, but that shouldn't make it the "owner" of airwaves or give it the power to dictate programming standards.

Well, it is and has been for 60+ years.

[HBox]

I wish the government out of the airwaves business. I see no reason why I shouldn't be forced to listen to Jimbo on the corner's best of bluegrass country and Neo-Nazi political talk whenever he decides to juice up his transmitter.

[SP1!]

No, no and no. Let me explain the differences:

Broadcast radio & television operate because of the government owned airwaves, hence they have an inherent responsibility to the owner...the people.

Print media operates because of the printing press which is owned by the individual company. So it is responsible to itself and its mission. Cable television providers and satellite radio also fall under this umbrella.
I hate it when anyone says the people own the airwaves, we dont. The government does and gets paid handsomely for those leases, which brings it back to them forcing stations to air opposing views even though they paid millions for the right to broadcast. And I doubt it would stop there, Im sure they would make satellite do the same since they pay for a frequency or spectrum that they can broadcast on, its why they have to turn down their receivers from over lapping other and if they tried to get this through and didnt include satellite you could bet radio stations would bitch yet again.

hey silly....

ok, so my local station plays Glen Beck(9am-11am),Bob Lonsberry(11a-2p), Limbaugh(2pm-5pm) and Savage(9pm-11pm) and Hannity (11pm-1am). SO thats 13hrs of "Conservative" programming, which is paid for by commercial interests that run spots during those shows.

They have a news/talk morning show, and a few hours of news each day, how would they support this "equal" time?

The liberals own print and television media, and conservatives own radio, I dont see the issue.

K
Well thats how they interpret, it but you could say a differing opinion is one show or a statement, they used to do that a lot back in the 80s but if this were to ever get back through some shit would try and push through the notion that they deserve as much time as conservative talk shows receive.

[K.C.]

I hope they enact the old model of the Fairness Doctrine in general, because it may finally make the news networks actually do their job,

And then make a special provision to enact the "'scare, fear, scare, fear, scare, fear', death of free speech, Big Brother is watching you, negroes are coming to steal my show and guns" version for Anthony Cumia.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Well, it is and has been for 60+ years.

And it's a fine track record they've had.
I mean, we've had

[epo]

hey silly....

ok, so my local station plays Glen Beck(9am-11am),Bob Lonsberry(11a-2p), Limbaugh(2pm-5pm) and Savage(9pm-11pm) and Hannity (11pm-1am). SO thats 13hrs of "Conservative" programming, which is paid for by commercial interests that run spots during those shows.

They have a news/talk morning show, and a few hours of news each day, how would they support this "equal" time?

The liberals own print and television media, and conservatives own radio, I dont see the issue.

K

Its almost like you can't read.

[Syd]

Its almost like you can't read.

you don't need to read when people can just go ahead and tell you what your opinions should be

[SP1!]

So now its all about balance? (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html)

Why should it be equal now mr clinton? And big money? I seem to remember that the dems have 2 of the richest men in the world on their side.

Sorry for bringing up this old thread but it fits here

[TheMojoPin]

My God! A guy said things! DO SOMETHING.

[FezsAssistant]

I'm all for fairness as long as it is also applied to TV, Movies and Print as well.
Those 3 are 99% liberal. It would be great to see 100 more conservative TV channels, 50% control of movie content and 50% voice in print as well.
I don't know if the liberals want to open that door.
The liberals are getting their ass kicked in one media type (in ratings - they are certainly not outnumbered) and want to change the rules. Poor sports.

Then again, we also have a president that is in over his head and isn't allowed to be criticized. Apparently, he can't handle dissenting opinions after being given a free pass for the entire election process.

[FezsAssistant]

No, no and no. Let me explain the differences:

Broadcast radio & television operate because of the government owned airwaves, hence they have an inherent responsibility to the owner...the people.

Print media operates because of the printing press which is owned by the individual company. So it is responsible to itself and its mission. Cable television providers and satellite radio also fall under this umbrella.

You contradicted yourself, sir. Please read before responding.
99% of TV channels are liberal. Let's get rid of 100 of them and create 100 conservative channels, with sitcoms that further the cause of anti-gay anti-abortion Christian values. It's only fair, right?

[TheMojoPin]

I'm all for fairness as long as it is also applied to TV, Movies and Print as well.
Those 3 are 99% liberal. It would be great to see 100 more conservative TV channels, 50% control of movie content and 50% voice in print as well.
I don't know if the liberals want to open that door.
The liberals are getting their ass kicked in one media type (in ratings - they are certainly not outnumbered) and want to change the rules. Poor sports.

NOBODY WANTS TO CHANGE ANY RULES.

Jesus Christ, are you blind? Clinton only said he wished the radio was more balanced. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

And how are TV, movies, and print mdia "99% liberal?" What does something that inane and hysterical even mean? Explain to me how ESPN is "liberal." How is the History Channel or A&E "liberal?" How is the Discovery Channel "liberal?" How is Animal Planet "liberal?" What the fuck would a "conservative" channel be? What is the difference between a "conservative" and "liberal" movie? Can you enjoy ANYTHING pop culture-wise without breaking it down into ludicrous partisan distinctions? Do you just sit around being angry at movies, TV and newspapers?

THIS SHIT IS MEANINGLESS. "Bias" is the stupidest, fakest, most pointless outrage I've seen in my lifetime. WHO GIVES A FUCK? Sitcoms are sitcoms and movies are movies. Conservatives tend to not dominae the entertainment business. It's the same thing as the complaints over the academic world...conservatives tend to not enter teaching. You can't create shit that doesn't exist. Our personal politics tend to shape the paths we take in life career-wise.

Then again, we also have a president that is in over his head and isn't allowed to be criticized. Apparently, he can't handle dissenting opinions after being given a free pass for the entire election process.

Yeah, boy, nobody is allowed to do that. Wat, that's not true at all. Huh.

[TheMojoPin]

You contradicted yourself, sir. Please read before responding.
99% of TV channels are liberal. Let's get rid of 100 of them and create 100 conservative channels, with sitcoms that further the cause of anti-gay anti-abortion Christian values. It's only fair, right?

Please explain to me how any sitcom at any time has "furthered liberal values." Oh, I guess those gay ones, right? How dare there be a show about them.

Please, break down 100 channels right now and tell me how they're "liberal." Go ahead. Should be easy since 99% of all channels are that way.

[SP1!]

NOBODY WANTS TO CHANGE ANY RULES.

Jesus Christ, are you blind? Clinton only said he wished the radio was more balanced. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

And how are TV, movies, and print mdia "99% liberal?" What does something that inane and hysterical even mean? Explain to me how ESPN is "liberal." How is the History Channel or A&E "liberal?" How is the Discovery Channel "liberal?" How is Animal Planet "liberal?" What the fuck would a "conservative" channel be? What is the difference between a "conservative" and "liberal" movie? Can you enjoy ANYTHING pop culture-wise without breaking it down into ludicrous partisan distinctions? Do you just sit around being angry at movies, TV and newspapers?

THIS SHIT IS MEANINGLESS. "Bias" is the stupidest, fakest, most pointless outrage I've seen in my lifetime. WHO GIVES A FUCK? Sitcoms are sitcoms and movies are movies. Conservatives tend to not dominae the entertainment business. It's the same thing as the complaints over the academic world...conservatives tend to not enter teaching. You can't create shit that doesn't exist. Our personal politics tend to shape the paths we take in life career-wise.
I would agree it doesnt mean anything except all the democrats talk about how radio is just full of hate, I havent seen very many right wingers talk about getting newspapers shut down or ask for equal time for every article critical of their bills.

Im basically for telling the government to fuck off whenever I can, if it sells why bother trying to censor it or compete against it? Air America was a bad idea though, those people had zero personality and even fewer facts that would hold up under scrutiny.

[TheMojoPin]

I would agree it doesnt mean anything except all the democrats talk about how radio is just full of hate, I havent seen very many right wingers talk about getting newspapers shut down or ask for equal time for every article critical of their bills.

Because there's not the history or the context of this debate over the use of the public airways. That's a completely different issue than newspapers or TV or movies.

And again, it's not about "equal time." The Fairness Doctrine says absolutely nothing about equal time, and the Supreme Court has clarified that.

Plus, let's be honest...there are not "liberal media" personalities or outlets spouting what guys like Rush and Hannity and Savage and Mancow and their ilk hinge their shows on. The closest "liberal" example I can think of is Michael Moore, and he's a pussycat compared to them.

[Ritalin]

Everybody read this before you go one step further.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/14/brooks/

[SP1!]

Because there's not the history or the context of this debate over the use of the public airways. That's a completely different issue than newspapers or TV or movies.

And again, it's not about "equal time." The Fairness Doctrine says absolutely nothing about equal time, and the Supreme Court has clarified that.

Plus, let's be honest...there are not "liberal media" personalities or outlets spouting what guys like Rush and Hannity and Savage and Mancow and their ilk hinge their shows on. The closest "liberal" example I can think of is Michael Moore, and he's a pussycat compared to them.
I understand all that, I also understand what the fairness doctrine actually says, what I dont like are the people pushing this now are wanting what they call balance which is people thinking they are going to call for equal time. If they change the bill then it may equate to equal time and quite a few democrat congressmen look at talk radio as a real problem in their states. Like I said, Im more for telling the government to fuck off most of the time just on sheer principle because usually when they ran those equal time slots I was asleep in bed.

And as far as liberal show hosts, I guess you havent heard madow or randi rhodes, they are fucking just as looney and twist facts just as much as limbaugh but they never get called on that shit. Hell even olberman never gets called on his bullshit and hes just as nutty if not more so as oreilly.

For the record I cant stand any of those talk show hosts, I sometimes listen to a local one Boortz but even he gets on my nerves sometimes.

[epo]

No, no and no. Let me explain the differences:

Broadcast radio & television operate because of the government owned airwaves, hence they have an inherent responsibility to the owner...the people.

Print media operates because of the printing press which is owned by the individual company. So it is responsible to itself and its mission. Cable television providers and satellite radio also fall under this umbrella.

You contradicted yourself, sir. Please read before responding.
99% of TV channels are liberal. Let's get rid of 100 of them and create 100 conservative channels, with sitcoms that further the cause of anti-gay anti-abortion Christian values. It's only fair, right?

How is the blood fuck did I contradict myself? I swear some people don't know how to read and comprehend the English language.

[epo]

Everybody read this before you go one step further.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/14/brooks/

Which has little to no value to this thread.

[Ritalin]

I don't think that's true at all.

The truth of the matter is that most of the insider DC media is professionally invested in the status quo.

I think that this debate over the "fairness doctrine" is aggressively worthless, the biggest red McGuffin herring around these days.

Play on.

[TheMojoPin]

I understand all that, I also understand what the fairness doctrine actually says, what I dont like are the people pushing this now are wanting what they call balance which is people thinking they are going to call for equal time.

They wouldn't get it.

If they change the bill then it may equate to equal time and quite a few democrat congressmen look at talk radio as a real problem in their states. Like I said, Im more for telling the government to fuck off most of the time just on sheer principle because usually when they ran those equal time slots I was asleep in bed.

I have no idea how you think the Democrats would pull this off. Between the negative spin and the Supreme Court, it would either collapse, be overruled or do far more harm than good.

And as far as liberal show hosts, I guess you havent heard madow or randi rhodes, they are fucking just as looney and twist facts just as much as limbaugh but they never get called on that shit. Hell even olberman never gets called on his bullshit and hes just as nutty if not more so as oreilly.

Of course I've heard them. I've never heard them use the vitriol the consevative hosts do. I never hear calls of "traitors" or "treason" or far, far worse. Besides, if the ones on the Left bug you so much, the Fairness Doctrine would effect them just as much as those on the Right. Anyone could challenge them and demand airtime for a response.

[high fly]

Because there's not the history or the context of this debate over the use of the public airways. That's a completely different issue than newspapers or TV or movies.

And again, it's not about "equal time." The Fairness Doctrine says absolutely nothing about equal time, and the Supreme Court has clarified that.

Plus, let's be honest...there are not "liberal media" personalities or outlets spouting what guys like Rush and Hannity and Savage and Mancow and their ilk hinge their shows on. The closest "liberal" example I can think of is Michael Moore, and he's a pussycat compared to them.


Alan Colmes has an excellent radio show.
He lets people talk and can be quite funny and is nice to callers...
He comes on at 10pm and his blog is at liberalland.com

[foodcourtdruide]

The Fairness Doctrine is one of my favorite political topics. It's become a catchphrase for conservative radio show hosts to use to insinuate that the U.S. Government is trying to limit their freedom of speech in order to promote a liberal agenda. Of course, this has no basis in reality, but it's always entertaining to watch a puppet show.

[Serpico1103]

According to Conservatives all media is liberal except for their precious Fox News and a few other hard right outlets. So, wouldn't requiring a balance help them?
Or, are they now being forced to realize that the media is not controlled by liberals, it is controlled by advertising dollars. Fox news gets good ratings because it filled a niche. Most people however, don't want to hear O'Reilly's spin in the "No Spin Zone."

[SP1!]

They wouldn't get it.
Maybe not but it doesnt seem to stop them from trying

I have no idea how you think the Democrats would pull this off. Between the negative spin and the Supreme Court, it would either collapse, be overruled or do far more harm than good.Yeah its kind of funny watching them talk about this, they seem to be completely detached from reality and not realizing what the people really want.

Of course I've heard them. I've never heard them use the vitriol the consevative hosts do. I never hear calls of "traitors" or "treason" or far, far worse. Besides, if the ones on the Left bug you so much, the Fairness Doctrine would effect them just as much as those on the Right. Anyone could challenge them and demand airtime for a response.Well then you should listen to rhodes more, olberman can be bad as well, maddow is probably the most fair but she still spins facts just like every other talk show host. Every time I hear one of them saying traitor I am hoping that most people are just tuning out, but I know thats not the case and people eat that shit up. Rhodes seems to be the biggest spin doctress on the left, her show is usually full of shit or at least as much shit as limbaughs. Oreilly is perplexing, I hate him usually but every once in a while he has a show that attacks both sides for being stupid, I still hate his little bits at the end of his TV show though.

[foodcourtdruide]

I find Rhodes unlistenable. I think Olbermann is funny and he does a good show, but he definitely becomes too much of an ideologue for me, kinda like Limbaugh, though not as vicious. Maddow is definitely to the left, but I think she's incredibly intelligent and makes the most compelling arguments of any talk show host listed, right or left.

I agree with you about O'Reilly, sometimes I hate him and think he's Sean Hannity-ish, but sometimes I think he puts on a pretty entertaining show. I wish he'd stop with his idiotic war on Christmas nonsense. I think O'Reilly doing a show with Olbermann would probably be great, as they would balance each other out quite well.

[SP1!]

The Fairness Doctrine is one of my favorite political topics. It's become a catchphrase for conservative radio show hosts to use to insinuate that the U.S. Government is trying to limit their freedom of speech in order to promote a liberal agenda. Of course, this has no basis in reality, but it's always entertaining to watch a puppet show.

Read what some people are calling for, its not fairness they are calling for, its balance which is why I posted clintons idiotic demand in the thread, its not about limiting anything, its about forcing shit on broadcasters.

According to Conservatives all media is liberal except for their precious Fox News and a few other hard right outlets. So, wouldn't requiring a balance help them?
Or, are they now being forced to realize that the media is not controlled by liberals, it is controlled by advertising dollars. Fox news gets good ratings because it filled a niche. Most people however, don't want to hear O'Reilly's spin in the "No Spin Zone."

And the problem with that is they are not calling for it across the board, its just radio they are singling out, mainly because its the democrats and government's primary attacker. Quite a few of those in washington look at talk radio as the biggest enemy to them.

Oh and his no spin zone is the most watched show on cable so quit a few people do like watching his show, he could be a lot better if he didnt yell so much.

[foodcourtdruide]

Read what some people are calling for, its not fairness they are calling for, its balance which is why I posted clintons idiotic demand in the thread, its not about limiting anything, its about forcing shit on broadcasters.


Your post refers to the fairness doctrine and those supporting it. If people are calling for something else, than I don't know what to say about that. The Fairness Doctrine was created when broadcast outlets were limited so no one political ideology would have a monopoly on the public airwaves, and as radio becomes more centralized and owners in the medium become fewer, it makes sense that the debate resurfaces.

[SP1!]

So now its all about balance? (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html)

Why should it be equal now mr clinton? And big money? I seem to remember that the dems have 2 of the richest men in the world on their side.

Sorry for bringing up this old thread but it fits here

Your post refers to the fairness doctrine and those supporting it. If people are calling for something else, than I don't know what to say about that. The Fairness Doctrine was created when broadcast outlets were limited so no one political ideology would have a monopoly on the public airwaves, and as radio becomes more centralized and owners in the medium become fewer, it makes sense that the debate resurfaces.

That was the post I used after the initial thread, he started the typical talking point about balance and not just the fairness doctrine.
"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."
Now I know that will probably never happen but its what some people want pushed through, not people with half a brain, mind you but people who feel that talk radio like limbaugh is a threat. Fact remains that out of all the media outlets radio is one of the few that doesnt have a known liberal star.

[Furtherman]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XFLQTHqiARA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XFLQTHqiARA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[beachbum]

Why should the Fairness Doctrine only apply to radio?
I think we would have to have another 200 channels of 'conservative' TV programming to balance out the 200+ 'liberal' stations already on. Or at least make it 100/100, instead of 199/1.

Same with print media. We have to be fair, right?

It's suspicious that the liberals only want this applied to the media type in which they aren't in full control of. Kind of fishy to me.

Also, to force radio stations to air shows that people don't want to listen to would be bad business. Would the government subsidize the stations to make up for the lost advertising revenue?

Shit like this drives me fucking nuts!

[Serpico1103]

Oh and his no spin zone is the most watched show on cable so quit a few people do like watching his show, he could be a lot better if he didnt yell so much.

But if the rest of what is on at that time is "liberal media", then he is getting destroyed in the ratings. That is my point, they point to Fox News' ratings to show that people want conservative TV, but then claim the rest of TV is liberal. If that is the case, than almost no one wants conservative TV. It is a small niche being served by Fox, but it is not close to being a large segment when compared to the rest of TV, which includes those "liberal" broadcast stations.

[beachbum]

I for one am old enough to remember the Clinton years.The so called liberal media raked him over the coals.The uber liberal Tom Brokaw led every nights newscast with the god damned blow job speculation.

It seems to me that because we have had 8 years of republican rule everyone from the right has used this as an excuse to call the media liberal,like they needed one.Just because the media looks into what your particular party is doing doesn't necessarily mean that they are against your party.

Yes there is a "love affair" with the new administration but if you remember correctly Bush was given alot of lee way when he first took office.When the media gets over their initial love fest Obama will be shit hammered like all the rest.

The only two news organizations that are truly biased IMO are Fox and MSNBC.I watch neither.

[JimBeam]

I don't know the entire concept of it but my little understanding of it is that if 770 Am is playing Rush then they have to, by some law, also play a counter personality ?

Does that mean I can get an anti-Howard Stern who states the exact opposite points ?

Does the company that employs this person also pay this personality $500 million and if so does the government pay for it or is this company supposed to pay for a show that possible nobody would listen to ?

If you don't like what somebody's saying on any station turn the f-ing channel.

If you wanna hear that the stimulus is great and that Obama can do no wrong than find a station that's carrying that show.

If you want to hear that the stimulus is the end of the world and that Obama is a demon than tune into a show that's saying that.

[Furtherman]

Oh and his no spin zone is the most watched show on cable so quit a few people do like watching his show, he could be a lot better if he didnt yell so much.

Most watched show on cable?

No.

[SP1!]

I don't know the entire concept of it but my little understanding of it is that if 770 Am is playing Rush then they have to, by some law, also play a counter personality ?

Does that mean I can get an anti-Howard Stern who states the exact opposite points ?

Does the company that employs this person also pay this personality $500 million and if so does the government pay for it or is this company supposed to pay for a show that possible nobody would listen to ?

If you don't like what somebody's saying on any station turn the f-ing channel.

If you wanna hear that the stimulus is great and that Obama can do no wrong than find a station that's carrying that show.

If you want to hear that the stimulus is the end of the world and that Obama is a demon than tune into a show that's saying that.
Fairness doctrine doesnt say that, it says they have to get an opposing view on sometime, which means they usually stuck it on around 3am when virtually no one was listening or on sunday mornings when listenership is way down. The only thing that scares me is the fact that some of these people are calling for balance which is completely different and makes me wonder if they are trying to change the rules to take out the dems main opponent.

Most watched show on cable?

No.

Fine, the most watched show on any news channel and if you ignore sports broadcasts and spongebob hes in the top 10, is that better? Still 2 million+ viewers a night is nothing to just ignore.

[TheMojoPin]

Maybe not but it doesnt seem to stop them from trying

What are they trying? You're leaping from comments an asides like that puts them on the verge of passing sweeping media content control. Nobody on any side would be able to do such a thing. It's sour grapes over a medium where their really vocal and savage critics thrive.

Well then you should listen to rhodes more, olberman can be bad as well, maddow is probably the most fair but she still spins facts just like every other talk show host. Every time I hear one of them saying traitor I am hoping that most people are just tuning out, but I know thats not the case and people eat that shit up. Rhodes seems to be the biggest spin doctress on the left, her show is usually full of shit or at least as much shit as limbaughs. Oreilly is perplexing, I hate him usually but every once in a while he has a show that attacks both sides for being stupid, I still hate his little bits at the end of his TV show though.

As obnoxious as Olbermann et al are, I really can't see how you see them on the same level of ugly and hateful vitriol as guys like Hannity, Rush and Savage and the like.

[Syd]

Fairness doctrine doesnt say that, it says they have to get an opposing view on sometime, which means they usually stuck it on around 3am when virtually no one was listening or on sunday mornings when listenership is way down. The only thing that scares me is the fact that some of these people are calling for balance which is completely different and makes me wonder if they are trying to change the rules to take out the dems main opponent.

Media isn't the democrats main opponent any more. Fox, AM radio etc haven't been able to make inroads with minorities whatsoever and every passing day represents lower ratings for them as whites die and don't replace themselves.

[foodcourtdruide]

As obnoxious as Olbermann et al are, I really can't see how you see them on the same level of ugly and hateful vitriol as guys like Hannity, Rush and Savage and the like.

I have to agree with Mojo. I think Olbermann, Rhodes, Maddow at their worst are sarcastic and obnoxious. However, the 3 right-wing hosts he mentioned are vicious and borderline insane at times, especially Savage.

[foodcourtdruide]

Fairness doctrine doesnt say that, it says they have to get an opposing view on sometime, which means they usually stuck it on around 3am when virtually no one was listening or on sunday mornings when listenership is way down. The only thing that scares me is the fact that some of these people are calling for balance which is completely different and makes me wonder if they are trying to change the rules to take out the dems main opponent.


I don't think you have to worry about that. Look at how divisive the Fairness Docrtrine is, more sweeping legislation would be impossible to pass. That's why when I hear the right-wing talk show hosts talk about this issue I just think it's a dog and pony show.

[SP1!]

I have to agree with Mojo. I think Olbermann, Rhodes, Maddow at their worst are sarcastic and obnoxious. However, the 3 right-wing hosts he mentioned are vicious and borderline insane at times, especially Savage.
Well it all depends on your point of view, I think rhodes is on the same level as the others, with olberman being a close second and maddow being a distant 3rd. Out of all of them I do agree that savage is just a fucking loon, I think he just says half that shit to get attention, at least I hope he does cause I hate to think any human could be that crazy.

I don't think you have to worry about that. Look at how divisive the Fairness Docrtrine is, more sweeping legislation would be impossible to pass. That's why when I hear the right-wing talk show hosts talk about this issue I just think it's a dog and pony show.
Yeah probably but it shocks me that people think its fair to force their ideas on privately owned interests, like I said before Im not protecting rush, I just want the government out of the public's business as much as possible. The only time they can come in is if its inciting or causing someone harm, until then fuck off.

[Yerdaddy]

We had a fairness doctrine in America for, what, 60 years? It didn't cause any of the abuses or "forced opinions" that any of the opponents are crying about. It just meant you couldn't pass off crazy, hateful political propaganda as news on the public airwaves. I think it's obvious we are far dumber and more dangerous to ourselves and others without it.