Fairness Doctrine may be revisited

NeMont

Long Time Member
Messages
12,632
Let's see the Democrats have controlling majorities in both the House and Senate, The occupy the White House and yet they remain afraid of a few "rightwing" talk radio host. Having these "conservative" radio programs has obviously damage the chances of the Democrats to govern this country and the voters have flocked to the rightwing. Sheeesh.

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1148115&spid=24698

Why are the Democrats thinking of limited what somebody can listen to? At a time of real national problems they want to take time away to limit people's choice of what is on the air.


Isn't having NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN et al squarely in the democrats camp enough for them? I mean are they really afraid that Rush is going to hurt them?

I am rapidly losing any hope that I had that things could ever get better in this country.

Nemont
 
I absolutly agree with you. Everybody drank the punch and voted for the messiah thinking he would solve this countrys problems within a day of taking office. As everybodys buzz wears off they will slowly realize that nothing a liberal stands for makes any sense and people with old fashioned common sense like Rush, Hannity and Jason Lewis will get even more attention than they do now and I think thats what they are scared of. Obama has mentioned these guys on the campaign trail and after being sworn in several times, so they are in his head and he knows there message is the only thing standing in the way of his ultimate path towards socialism. If the fairness doctrine is reinstated it will be a sad day indeed but there is consequences for elections and just maybe next time around people will take common sense and character into consideration before casting there vote.
 
Maybe it would help some if first we agree on what's being discussed. If there's a need for balance and equity a discussion of how best to achieve that is top priority. But I think some people confuse liberal with far left, or maybe they have not paid enough attention to the facts or maybe the far right had obscured, in the very least, the definition and if all you do is consume hate speech . . . well, as the saying goes, you are what you eat.

Here's the accepted definition of Liberal. . . If this defines liberal, i'm a liberal. . .

I'll highlight this exert for those that wont or dont care to read the entire definition.

"The first liberal state was the United States of America[14], founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[15]"

Here's the full text from wikipedia:

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[6]

Liberalism appears in two broad forms: Classical liberalism, which emphasizes the importance of individual liberty, and contemporary liberalism which emphasizes some kind of material equality.[7] Those who identify themselves as classical liberals, to distinguish themselves from social liberals, oppose all government regulation of business and the economy, with the exception of laws against force and fraud, and support free market laissez-faire capitalism. In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives.[8] In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of modern liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. They tend to support a welfare state[5], a government-imposed minimum wage, laws against discrimination in hiring, and affirmative action.[9][5]

Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.[10][11][12] Liberals argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity.[13]

The first liberal state was the United States of America[14], founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[15] This said, much of early liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France.
 
How is Rush going to hurt anyone other than the whack jobs who listen to him? just because some dems as dumb as Rush is want to have a pizzing match doesn't mean the mainstream democrats are ready for a showdown that makes them look like morons.


This is much about nothing, I'd be real surprised if it gets any traction. the only one this is going to help is fat butt pill popping anti agriculture Rush, by acknowedging him they give him credibility and some are too simple to see it. all they need to do is ignore him and leave him and his ditto heads to play with themselves and nobody gets hurt.
 
Tmoney,

You are the king of "baffle them with BS"



great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
T which of those description fit today's democratic party?

If you think the fairness doctrine as would be implemented by this congress would be geared toward opening a dialogue you have way more confidence then I do in these politicians. The democrats should have no more say so over what is on the radio then the Republicans. If someone doesn't like Rush then turn him off. Does the fairness doctrine even matter in today's world of 24/7 access to the web?

Aren't there alot more important things to spend ones time on? All the talk of fairness doctrine does is make the democrats look petty and scared when they hold power.

Nemont
 
T, your post is the definition of present day Libertarian Party and 80% of Americans will agree with the hands off from the government side of the definition, people just want the gov to leave them alone and get out of their affairs. The other side or government intervention is the present liberal philosophy and is rooted in Marxism. They have adopted that meaning of liberal to hide the marxist platform of their party from the people.

The Fairness Doctrine is unconstitional and infringes on the 1st Amendment right to a free press. But a Marxist does not care about that, its about control over the people.
 
Dude, I agree with most of your stances on things but I must say that Rush is coined a right wing nut job ny people like Obama, Pelosi Reid and the likes. Now I'm no rocket scientist but I do know that Rush could get more done given the chance in a week than the above mentioned could do in a year. I guess Rush and the gang in conservative radio are doing something right if these people repeatedly bring up there names. Obama hates conservative values because they go against everything he beleives in but at the same time he knows that all the education in the world doesn't trump common sense. Dude you remind me of my buddy thats in the electrical union who has the most conservative views that I know but pulls the lever for the dumocrat because he drank the union punch. If you dont mind me asking do you get a subsidy check from uncle sam and if so how much?
 
I think the fairness doctrine, as being brought up, is about demanding equal time for the liberal point of view, (well OK T the opposite view from Rush). You see, it's just not fair that Rush and Hannity get all the air time.

The radio stations sell air time, and it just so happens that Rush and Hannity (among others) bring in the big bucks because they sell advertising because they have so many listeners.

If the other side wants air time they are free to put together a program and sell it to the radio station also. They have tried it plenty of times in the past and nobody will advertise on their shows because they only had like 12 listeners. (Three guys in jail, 4 residents in an Alzheimers ward, and 5 who were too stoned to change the channel.)

That's life in the big city. But the cry baby liberals say it just isn't fair. They demand equal time, which would break a radio station. So if they're forced to give equal time they will probably drop Rush and Hannity, and that will accomplish what the other side wants.
 
Accubond if Rush was capible of doing anything other than preaching hate and doing drugs why doesn't he run for a political office ? I'm sure if he picked his state he could get elected, his groupies would move there to vote if needed.

It's easy to sit back and tell it like it is, or as we see it, we all do it all the time. so let Rush put his chubby butt on the line and lets see some action not just blabber, his ditto heads can take up a collection to see to it he doesn't take a pay cut that would cut into his habit.

When the democrats give him the attention they do they validate him as a political figure , a political figure with no bounds or need to prove anything. they're morons to play that game.

As far as my subsidy all I get is the DCP payment, my operation had a 7 figure gross last year and my payment was $7800 or something like that I don't recall but it wasn't much.
Some producers rely much more on subsidy programs, and I'd be way better off if they were allowed to go broke. good for me, bad for the consumer, most people as well as fatt butt Rush don't get that.

A cheap stabile food supply is essential to a nation like ours, go ahead and stop manipulating the markets, that can be Rush's first priority as your newly elected
political savior. just give me a heads up because I want to tie some more ground up, in a couple years ag is going to be sweet. when you're paying unscrewed with boom and bust supply and demand food prices we'll see if chubby can still dazzle you with his brilliance.
 
the truth is the radio media is owned by the right wing, there are enough listeners, there's not enough owners who are willing to air the left talkers. . . You can blame this on Clinton, it was his administration that allowed the take over all the independent stations by the big boys. The only non mainstream radio you hear is church talk and to understand that you have to look at who owns the stations.

Moreover, the issue is that the air waves are public, not private, if one viewpoint capitalizes the public air waves is that fair? I'm not for telling them to get off the air, not at all. I'm not in favor of a new law, i'm in favor of a discussion if there's things that are not equitable. .
 
T,

That is all fine and dandy but there is ample evidence that other public owned airwaves are dominated by the liberal view point.

Do you believe there is an equitable representation of viewpoint on say NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, etc, etc? Where does Air America fit in all this? CNN radio, MSNBC radio which I get via XM are practically the Obama cheering section.

If left leaning or in the new America "progressive" leaning talk show hosts like Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Rachael Maddow had a fan base and could attract advertising, are you telling me that there aren't stations that would air those shows? Come on if there is a buck to be made somebody is going to make it, otherwise you are subscribing to a conspiracy theory that right wingers have conspired to keep left wingers off the air.

I think the truth is that most right wing leaning people are sick of the MSM and talk radio give them a place to listen to what the like. Why should the government care what program is played on these radio stations?

So please explain how the fairness doctrine would affect anything in the political discussion of this country. Especially given the fact that the web is the new medium of choice by both sides. Should the web be subject to the fairness doctrine?

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-09 AT 11:57AM (MST)[p]Some truth to that, but what I'd rather see is a group of liberals band together to expand their own radio station than try to step on someone elses. it could be done, I just don't think anyone cares enough .

I do think goobs like Rush do harm, they preach hate and division to their simpletons, but it isn't against the law to be stupid and it should be against the law for Rush to exploit that stupidity for his gain.

Maybe with some luck Rush will down one too many burgers and have a heart attack or OD on his dope, then someone with a brain and good intentions like Gingrich will replace him with a strong but intellegent conservative prospective. hate and division shouldn't openly be the basis for any public broadcast, but I'm not sure stopping it is legal or correct.
 
It's called freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are constitutional rights so far in this country. The left won the white house, the senate, and the house of reps. What the hell are they afraid of? all the conservative talking heads on the radio didn't affect all the power the left now enjoys. Are they afraid that people actually have differences of opinion on politics and policy and how best to run the country. That is the reason why we are the greatest country on the planet in spite of all our problems. Do they really want everyone to agree with them or only hear their side. The left controls the written and television press where opposing views are clearly in the minority. This is a free market society (I think?) whereby those that put out a good product will have demand. If the demand was there for the left leaning talk show gurus, they would be able to sell the advertising to pay for that programming. Like someone already said if you don't like it turn the channel. I like Canon gear and Fords (although I did just buy a Nikon setup) T likes Nikon. Respect everyones point of view, disagree without being disagreeable. Does Rush push the envelope? yea - does Maddow and Olberman do the same, hell yeah. This is a road they don't want to go down, it will not go well for them and will only make them look weak. Don't like the product, put out a better one. Don't tell us we need to be like Chavez's Venezuela.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-09 AT 02:21PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-09 AT 02:10?PM (MST)



"If left leaning or in the new America "progressive" leaning talk show hosts like Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Rachael Maddow had a fan base and could attract advertising, are you telling me that there aren't stations that would air those shows? Come on if there is a buck to be made somebody is going to make it. . . "

okay, you tell us why then they dont get more coverage, i think it someone said theres no market. . .

But there is something that in this case makes NO sense. the conspiracy you bring up is completely possible when youre talking about markets an media - in fact media is the tool of conspiracy and the dollar while powerful pails in comparison to ultimate political power.

If you dont think that ultimate power is worth more than money you should re think the entire history of the world. Therefore it is 100% possible, wait, it's likely that in this case, media and open markets and public air waves, one party or the other or the one with the most chips potentially holds the most power.

In reality, I think conspiracy might be the wrong word, cause you dont need a conspiracy if you have a litmus test, say abortion and church. You dont need a plan when you ally yourself based on ONE ISSUE, abortion for example. In other words, anti-abortion supporters are republicans, freedom to choose people are democrats, there's not a conspiracy but there is a side and no one needs to conspire to decide who's side they are are, and in the end as long as the message gets out, all the pro abortion people will pull in the same direction and all the prochoice people will pull in the other - not one meeting, not one memo, not one phone call not a hint of conspiracy.

As for using the right and left and Bush as an example, Bush pretty much did himself in, and I'm pretty sure you can agree with that Nemont. . .

Anyhow, i dont really know enough about your fairness doctrine, i've never even read it. I know this much, I'm not really for messing with the market at this point, I'm not for telling anyone they cant talk - if there's a single issue i have always supported that's speech, so I kinda resent the fact that anyone would suggest that I would support stopping free speech, it tells me that you might not be listen to me but instead your lumping me with a group to which I dont belong. . .

I cant support your "fairness doctrine" I wont comment much more as i'm not that up on this issue. . .

Tony
 
T,

The only thing I would say is that I never used the "freedom of Speech" arguement. I didn't feel I was lumping you into anything that said you were anti speech. If I did I am sorry.

I asked you to explain how who decides what is broadcast? I would say look at PBS, not many "conservative" voices on PBS. I am okay with that because I will watch what I like when I like. If I disagree with Bill Moyers I shut him off, I don't listen to Rush or Hannity because I just don't care for that type of rhetoric.

What Sen. Stabenow is talking about is not fairness but rather forced programming. She mentions only right wing radio without ever mentioning other media outlets that are left wing. I am willing to bet that she doesn't care what is put on Media Matter or MoveOn.org's websites, whether it is true or not.

I just don't see the need for this law and in the end the discussion of bringing it back only gives credence to the idea the Democrats are big government bullies. IMHO.

So anyway sorry to ruffle feathers as I didn't direct this just at you.

Nemont
 
How can you clowns waste so many words on this subject...... right wing radio has lots of listeners that look great to advertisers that spend money on advertising.......no one listens to liberal talkers.....so who in there right mind would spend money to advertise with them ???

It ain't rocket science. You'd think a senior scientist would grasp that.Even an oregon dirt farmer could get it you'd think.



great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
Maybe the problem is most liberals live where they have TV reception and electricity , plus they can read so printed media appeals to them.

In the heart of the red Rush zone where Ransom's from AM radio is about all that's available and newspaper is not for reading, it's for the walls and the outhouse.

If you do the math the media distributed out in perfect supply and demand capitolism form, it makes perfect sense.
 
I generally do a pretty good job of staying away from this forum these days, as I find H'dude to be a total moron. I was bored tonight, so thought I'd give it a look. Glad I did, it reminded me why I don't go in here.

H'dude, gotta give you one thing, you have hate speech down to a science.
 
I have to say you have being an ignorant goober down pat as well, maybe we could get our own Hanity and Combs type show?
 
weather the Dems succeed or not is not the point, their thought process is Un-American and anti-freedom of speach!...

scarry road were on right now!

My new Logo, thanx Bess....

498dc08f1d8a2fa0.jpg
 
Actually, H'dude, what I find so objectionable about you is your inability to ever discuss ideas or concepts. You always fall right away into personal attacks on those who don't share your views. That is why I have such a disdain for you, you lack any substance, only have the ability to attack everyone who doesn't see it your way.

There is very little that I agree with TFinal on, but at least when he makes a comment or arguement for his views and positions, there is some rational thought that goes into what he says. I think that is a major difference between the two of you, and why I respect him even though I mostly don't agree with him.
 
So did you go personal with me first or not? just because I fail to play grab & giggle with ditto heads doesn't mean I dislike any of you personally. if you find any of what I said too rough you hang out in a softer environment than I was brought up in, maybe you were Mr Roger's kid or maybe you're just unable to accept dissent yourself but that doesn't mean I have any disdain for you, that's petty. don't take any of this too serious it's just for fun, if some of us didn't stir it up it would just be a big happy fluffy circle jerk. not that there's anything wrong with that.

I only one I recall going personal on is Rush and if that hurt your feeelers I'm sorry but I'll do it again.
 
>Actually, H'dude, what I find so
>objectionable about you is your
>inability to ever discuss ideas
>or concepts. You always
>fall right away into personal
>attacks on those who don't
>share your views. That
>is why I have such
>a disdain for you, you
>lack any substance, only have
>the ability to attack everyone
>who doesn't see it your
>way.
>
>There is very little that I
>agree with TFinal on, but
>at least when he makes
>a comment or arguement for
>his views and positions, there
>is some rational thought that
>goes into what he says.
> I think that is
>a major difference between the
>two of you, and why
>I respect him even though
>I mostly don't agree with
>him.


That's just a tactic the Libs use to intimidate off the top.......I wish I was just joking but I'm afraid it's just the way it is?

I've been hit many-a times with it also, not just here either on MM.com
 
I'm curious, how come in a post titled "fairness doctrine. . . " there's a post by a member who points out that there is another member who never address the issues and only is here to comment on how other people comment? In fact, this poster never even mentioned the fairness doctrine. . . but rambled on about how someone else never address the issues. . .

Huh?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-09 AT 06:02PM (MST)[p]I almost didn't come back to this forum again, but did so I'll humor you Tfinal, and discuss the topic a little bit.

I regard the Fairness Doctrine as something this country can do without just fine. Free Speech works, whether we like what is said, or not. The only reason that the new administration or congress could want to re-institute the fairness doctrine is to limit the airtime that the opposing (i.e., conservative) side of our political spectrum can broadcast. Like it or not, the fact is that conservative (H'dude would call it hate) talk radio is commercially successful. Historically, liberal talk radio has been less successful from a commercial standpoint. While you have well known broadcasters such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Lewis and others doing well, having radio shows that are nationally syndicated with large audiences, I can't think of their liberal counterparts who are so successful. I do know there are liberal radio shows, but unless I'm mistaken, their audiences are significantly smaller, and the number of radio stations carrying them is also smaller. Perhaps part of the reason for this is that a larger percentage of this country than our mainstream media would have us believe, is conservative.

Have you stopped to ask yourself why the new administration might want a fairness doctrine? Do you believe it is to foster more liberal broadcasting, or perhaps to lessen conservative broadcasting. My personal belief is that the congressional leadership and administration desire to put a muzzle on broadcasters such as the conservatives I mentioned above, and will use this tool to try to acheive that result. I think that is wrong. We have plenty of liberal slanted media, most of which is on television, and that probably carries a greater impact than radio. If we'd see a requirement that more conservative television be broadcast to offset the liberal commentators and shows now airing, that would make sense as a balance to requiring more liberal talk radio; but my suspicion is that an arguement will be made, forcefully, that the television media is neutral, but that talk radio is biased. That isn't the truth, and most people realize that clearly. I believe that most thinking people (this excludes people like H'dude) would be fine if a fairness doctrine was imposed and it were even across the board. I doubt anyone truly believes that would be the goal or practice is it actually comes to be. I doubt any thinking person believes a new fairness doctrine would be used for anything other than political advantage.

Tfinal, I think it was good that you posted the definition of a liberal. You may fit that description, and if we're to believe you, you do. The problem that arises is that the people in power who run the democratic party in Washington don't really fit the definition you provided. While John F. Kennedy was considered a liberal in the 1960s, by today's standards he'd likely be considered a solid conservative. It might be helpful if you'd post the definition of fascist or socialist for the rest of us. I suspect Pelosi, Read, Obama, Biden, Frank, Doddd, Wrangell, Shumer and some of the rest of their gang might more closely fit the definitions of those words than liberal.

I'll gladly debate ideas with you, as I've previously stated, I think you put some thought into your posts. I won't waste my time arguing with your buddy, as he lives what he decries in others.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-09 AT 08:04PM (MST)[p]websters

Fascist
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality.

socialist
"Any of the various theories or systems of socials organization in which the means of producing and distributing is collectively or by a government that often plans and plans and controls the economy." Because it is communism.


Yummy
 
Marxism

Marxism calls for a classless society in which all means of production are commonly owned (communism), a system to be reached as an inevitable result of the struggle between the leaders of capitalism and the workers.


Communism

a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.


Interesting how marxism pits the workers against the leaders (owners of business) to achieve their end goal, communism. Now which party plays the class warfare game?

And what do you think the Fairness Doctrine is? In my opinion its warfare between two different ideas of thought.

On the one hand you have marxism - communism - socialism.

and on the other? I don't think its fascism.
 
This is kinda out of left field from where this post was the last time I looked but I want to get back to dudes take on Mr. Limbaugh. I won't argue, he's wrong on some things but when you say Rush is a wacko and then defend the messiah, Reid and Pelosi it makes me question your sanity. Bottom line is the fairness doctrine is aload of sh#t and the left is upset bacause left wing radio gets no ratings, you can't just get three hippies with microphones chanting Bush is an idiot and expect ratings. Right wing radio gets ratings and thus most of the air time which is the exact opposite of television which is clearly left. Hopefully this doesn't get any traction and they will just let the people that didn't drink the punch enjoy the last stronghold of common sense in this country.
 
"The problem that arises is that the people in power who run the democratic party in Washington don't really fit the definition you provided."

agreed, and the same is for the republicans. In fact, when the neocons took over with newt, the party left the party. . .
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom