Uproars Entertainment - What is with all the fairness doctrine questions?

What is with all the fairness doctrine questions?

I didn't get to listen today Is it Glenn,Rush, or Sean that is getting all of you conservatives here in an uproar to parrot their talking points. Hello Martin, This issue can't be the only one that we disagree on can it.I think that you know that if I thought that there was a SERIOUS effort to bring back some form of the fairness doctrine that I would applaud it.I do have a couple of questions for you. Was it the right or the left that benefitted from the removal of the fairness doctrine? Does having over a twenty year heads up and better funding put the possibility of having an equally succesful voice for the left on the air? If the intent of the framers of the Constitution was a representative government and it is our voice that determines the course that our government takes. Would the framers prefer that "We The People" be educated or propagandized? Edit: second question should have read. Does having over a twenty year heads up and better funding put the possibility of having an equally succesful voice for the left on the air at a disadvantage?

Public Comments

Oh go hug another Obama tree hippie if violating the Freedom of Speech is fair then I must be reading from another dictionary
No, there are a few Democratic elected officials that have been beating the drum over the past week. Democrats are all about free speech, as long as they approve what is being said.
Republicans like to pretend they're a persecuted minority, all while they demonize African-Americans, the poor, gays, liberals, Muslims, etc.
I do enjoy listening to people who question authority rather than networks that sell DVD's or tshirts of the president. How do you expect honest reporting when they're hocking a DVD of Obama?
The Fairness Doctrine is one the repub and Talk Radio "rants of the day". It gives them something to howl about and keeps them out of the serious stuff like running a country.
No..... Billy (C) ....the (Old) Kid ignited the pile yesterday.
"I didn't get to listen today Is it Glenn,Rush, or Sean that is getting all of you conservatives here in an uproar to parrot their talking points." Did the people at MSNBC told you about this and are repeating it to us.
Liberals crying they are treated so unfair, take away there freedom were we can rule over them at there expense. boo hoo, boo, hoo. Here the communist cry.
The cons are getting a bit frantic. Despite the censorship they've gotten away with for years on the public airwaves, they've lsot power in Amrica. Now they are facing the high likelihood that the Fairness Doctirne will restore the authority of the FCC to enforce open access to radio media. So it's understandable. If the cons can't hold onto power even when they were able to silence dissenting voices, what chance do they have of regaining power if free speech returns to the nattion's airwaves?
Read the news sources, it's out there today. Just because we listen to ALL the news doesn't mean we are sheeple. You should sit down and read it and then think about a subject that you are passionate about. Won't be able to discuss it any more...government control is not the best way regardless of what John Kerry may be saying.
It is a phony issue based on the off the cuff comments of the some lawmakers.
The Fairness Doctrine will have limited listeners to equal those that liberal talk radio Al Franken had on no more than 500 conservatives can listen at one time to not exceed the listeners of liberal talk radio. all talk radio must have morning meetings to be on same talking points with ABC ,CNN,MSNBC and authorized by Soros. I command you to raise Air America from the dead .
I don't listen to talk radio much and certainly have not today. However, if it's back in the media, it's not in the form of conservative talking points. This time, it's the Left that has put the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" back in the news lately. For example, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.,when asked about the Fairness Doctrine just LAST WEEK, said, "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves....And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place." She went on to say she'd push for hearings on the matter this year: "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep." And TODAY (02/13/09) on CNN Radio, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said, on CNN Radio: "I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated." He went on to say he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and tv ownership laws. The audio is available on the CNN website. So, what you call "talking points," I call news. EDIT: And, just yesterday, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked Bill Clinton himself if it was time for "some type of enforced media accountability." His answer? "Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side." So it seems that all the scuttlebut regarding the Fairness Doctrine is coming from the Left, not the Right. EDIT 2: So, Wyldfyr, I guess Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Representative Maurice Hinchley and Bill Clinton are "paranoid right wingnut victims" in your view. Wow, that's some dark red lense you're looking through. And, Kiran C, based on the above, it appears that your December 3 article is now out of date. A declaration of intent by lawmakers to bring the issue to Committee is hardly an "off the cuff comment." Could it be that the elites on the Left are now feeling invulnerable and unafraid to air even their most statist views? Again, it is the Left that is now bringing the issue to the forefront. The Right is just responding to it. EDIT 3: Blindguy, can you back up your statement that the cons have gotten away with censorship for years on the public airwaves? Can you give one example? If you are referring to FCC censorship, this was done by both the left and the right for purposes of "decency." Such censorship was considered necessary at the time by both sides because there was an extremely limited supply (by today's standards) of TV stations out there. Such censorship is pretty much non-existent now. I can turn on my radio inand hear discussions of oral sex or cop killing or *****-slapping just about any time. (Isn't it funny that I can say "*****-slapping" on the radio where my kids can hear it, but I can't say it on a supposedly adult forum like YA. It seems that YA is a more strident censor than the Republicans that Blindguy's complaining about.) So tell me the last time a right-wing politician tried to "silence dissenting voices" on the airwaves. And...more importantly... tell me how government-mandated radio content constitutes free speech. EDIT 4: Hi Bob, nice sparring with you again. To begin, I was only responding to the question you asked. You asked why the Right was bringing up the issue of the Fairness Doctrine again. I responded that, if you surveyed recent news media, you would find that it is the Left, not the Right, that raised this issue again. I also backed that statement up with some examples and links. I am assuming that, since you didn’t address this response, that you agree with my actual answer. You are now opening up the scope of the question to address the actual merits of the Fairness Doctrine. Okay, then let’s open it up. Again, however, I’ll try to limit my response to the scope of your specific questions. First, you ask: Was it the right or the left that benefitted from the removal of the fairness doctrine? I think this illustrates the differences in our views. You look at the pragmatic aspects of the problem (assuming it is a problem), and I look at the principles behind the problem. My answer to your question is that it does not matter who benefits. I would oppose the Fairness Doctrine whether it was the Right or the Left that benefitted. That is why I would oppose the Fairness Doctrine if it were proposed to be applied to the newspapers or to the TV or to Hollywood movies, all of which are slanted sharply to the Left. If you were consistent and principled in your outlook, you would support the Fairness Doctrine for all media, regardless of its current slant. I oppose limits to free speech no matter who is asserting the right. I support the right of a Nazi, an anarchist, a Democrat, a Muslim, and a free-market advocate all to speak their minds as they please. That's why I think all limits on speech should be universally applied. So, my question to you is this: would you support a Fairness Doctrine if talk radio was dominated by the Left? Or, would you support a Fairness Doctrine for media that are currently dominated by the Left? If not, aren’t you being just a bit hypocritical? Next, your second question: Does having over a twenty year heads up and better funding put the possibility of having an equally successful voice for the left on the air at a disadvantage? Again, the answer is not really relevant. For one, I believe that if a Left-leaning talk-radio host actually resonated with the average listener, he would be successful. Period. Ratings never lie. Secondly, I must ask the same questions to you again, but in a different form. If you are truly interested in “the possibility of having an EQUALLY successful voice for the left,” then you would want equality in all media, not just radio. So, Bob, are you willing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to all media? And lastly, you asked whether the intent of the framers of the Constitution was a representative government and if the framers prefer that "We The People" be educated or propagandized? That is a HUGELY loaded question, but I’ll try to remain concise. First of all, the Framers didn’t distinguish between news and propaganda, because they trusted the American people to make that distinction themselves. Hence, the First Amendment, which memorializes the most cherished of all of our freedoms. After all, the Revolution itself was a product of “propaganda”: have you ever read Common Sense? (Everyone in this country should be made to read it in grade school.) Now as far as education goes, nearly 80% of all public school teachers are Democrats. Since you are so interested in "educating our children instead of propagandizing them," shall we apply the Fairness Doctrine to teacher hirings for public schools? Shall we strive for a 50/50 ratio? Where does it end? Again, I’ve tried to limit my answer to be responsive to your specific questions. As you know I have plenty of other arguments against the Fairness Doctrine, including the fact that there is no practical way to implement it. You can look at my other answers if you wish to review my opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. But for now, I’d like your honest answer to the questions I have posed. I'd like to know if your support for the Fairness Doctrine is based on principle, or just political opportunism. Bob, thanks again for an engaging and respectful discussion.
Yes, this does seem to be the topic du jour. What's with all the " Hippie" comments and bashing lately? Another idiot talking point from those whose parents weren't even around in the 60's?
The only people I ever see talking about the "fairness doctrine" are paranoid right wingnut victims.
The Fairness doctrine is better called the Media control doctrine. The left has every media outlet type except Talk Radio and their attempts to penetrate it failed because of the market place not because of a "20 year" head start. NPR would not need tax payer money if the public wanted to hear how bad we are and how we need to bend over and grab our knees and take the liberals guilt trips and Global warming myths. We will fight this to the Supreme Court if needed.
Personally, I think that the public should get views from both sides. That's all the Fairness Doctrine is really about. People tend to confuse it with the Equal Time rule.