Printable View
these guys are scared to death about the fairness doctrine.:lol
the fairness doctrine was only their to protect the people.
all the fairness doctrine does is put a little conscientiousness in the minds of all media.
...and it doesn't censor anyones speech. the fairness doctrine just says you have to give equal time to both sides......
So if you have one 3 hour hannity, you have to have another 3 hour colmes.
Bravo to the government controlling the press.
I guess the terrorist and socialist cards aren't working well enough to maintain the brainwashing their listeners.
End goal is to drive them (prosperous conservative talk radio) out of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebowski Brickowski
Cool Hand talks some talk, then supports bullshit like this. What a doofus.
#'s of listeners are thriving. Do you know how much Rush gets paid a year? Do you know how profitable the industry is? Do you know that liberal talk radio has to be pumped full of $$$ just to stay afloat?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
The libfuckers are going after conserv. talk radio because it is the last form of media that questions them. Take them away, and you are fucking the country over.
Cant argue with any of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti.Hero
The fucking government should stay the hell out of any media. The Fairness Doctrine would be (another) slippery slope.
That should be the slogan so far this quarter...Slippery Slope.
I don't see how you could even enforce such a thing. Who determines which hosts are representing one side or the other? Is everything that host says subject to the Fairness Doctrine? What about moderate hosts (pretending for a moment there is such a thing)?
Anyway, I believe inplementation of Fairness Doctrine is as inevitable as the Draft we were going to have if Bush was re-elected in 2004.
Why would anyone support this? I especially don't understand why libs, being the ones that are always throwing the freedom of speech card around, would be supporting this?
damn straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
I don't know how anyone could be for this its not Rush's/Hannity's fault that the libs can't come up with anyone to rival their media presence.
i can't believe i actually have to agree with those two aholes about something.
Rush is quite the religious leader. I agree with you on the government needing to stay the hell out of the media though. The first amendment should have no exceptions. No exceptions for flag burning nor censorship nor anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti.Hero
Democratic leadership is just as self-serving as any other institution.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
Theyre getting their ass-whipped in the radio world. They have tried to compete, but cannot (Air America anyone?). So in their eyes, something needs to be done to counter the Limbaughs of the country and the influence they project (as evidenced by many board Republicans here).
IMO, the Fairness Doctrine represents everything government should not be. So whats next? What other media can be legislated against because it doesnt particularly adhere to "balance"?
What constitutes balance? Porn? Blogs? Internet? Cable television?
Again, a slippery slope. Its a horrible idea and I hope Spurminator is right that this is as likely to pass as the draft when W. was reelected in 2004.
To be fair, though... one flaw with my analogy is that the Draft wasn't being promoted by the Speaker of the House in 2004.
But I still don't see it happening. Decisions like these get parties booted out of power.
they didn't need to. i give alot of credit to rush/hannity for obama's victory. america just told them they suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100
Half hour max b4 sharing opposing points of view. The 3 hour format in widespread use would be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by cool hand
Liberal radio doesn't sell; formats will have to change.
That's the point.
If this isn't censorship, wtf is it?
The FCC does; part of the executive branch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You do the math.
Blathering about the "fairness doctrine" is simply more conservative hysteria.
It ain't gonna happen.
It is hard to figure out why some Democrats are intent on shooting themselves in the foot over this. Someone should tell them about the internet.
dumbarse.Quote:
Originally Posted by cool hand
The "fairness doctrine" only deals with Radio - and for it to be "fair" - shouldn't it include radio, print, TV and the internet, blogs and hollywood. --
Besides with Satellite radiop - you can have any talking point you want - even the libtards have radio. You can get whatever you want to hear through all the different mediums available..
Conservative hysteria? So when the Dem's come up with the idea, throw it around congress, and actually consider it...............but it's conservative hysteria......Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Where the fuck is the rolling eyes smilie? Oh, there it is.....:rolleyes:rolleyes
yeah, I noticed the same thing. didn't expect CH to be pro-Fairness Doctrine.Quote:
Cool Hand talks some talk, then supports bullshit like this. What a doofus.
Really, how many Democrats have been arguing for the Fairness Doctrine? I mean, important Democrats that actually have a say, not the wackos. This seems like a right-wing Boogeyman to me.
I could be wrong, but I'd like to see who was calling for passage of the Fairness Doctrine again. (Note: I am against it.)
more like airwavesQuote:
Originally Posted by Lebowski Brickowski
Oh, well nevermind then.:rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
I'm sure there's going to be some legislators out of touch with reality that are going to attempt to bring this 'doctrine' up. That said, the whole premise of this thing is entirely unconstitutional, so it will be stopped at one point or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
You said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti.Hero
People, watch out. When legislators use terminology like "fair," be careful.
Let me ask you believers in the Fairness Doctrine this. Why doesn't it apply to the news papers and television news? If we are going to be fair, why are we excluding them? Why is the Fairness Doctrine specifically targeted where conservative views can be heard? Why not also target the liberal news and press?
True... just like the "Fair" TaxQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LOL... You got me there.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
However, I bought the book. Read it and see for yourself. I said "be careful." I didn't say don't believe it.
Do some research. Don't just believe pundits.
It's only called the Fairness Doctrine--that doesn't mean it's "fair."
The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to control information. I'm tired of people saying it protects people because it preserves diversity of viewpoint, or provides "balance." Fuck balance. Some viewpoints are just plain wrong. Why do we have to have the government pass laws to legitimize stupidity?
fair and balanced. whats wrong with that?
Quote:
I want to start a revolution, but I believe the government should butt into the business of radio and give out talking point credits accordingly.
....wing-nut talk radio has destroyed the GOP...
I'm still waiting for examples of congressmen who are railing for that... ones that aren't on the fringe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100
Funny thing, one of the libs who used to be on KTSA years ago goes
from job to job, women's shelter and now at the dog pound I think.
Cant remember the guys name but he was not match for anyone, then
or now.
The fairness doctrine definitely infringes upon freedom of the press and I can't understand the fascination of anyone in a legislative position with it.
Pretty amazing that, in this thread, there is basically the OP and then universal disagreement with the OP thereafter. Regardless of political affiliation! Yay, middle ground!
As much as I dislike Rush/Hannity and other this idea to censor those shows are just plain stupid.
I can censor what I want.....it is called the off button or change the channel.
Wing-nut radio wasn't successful either from year one, in fact, it took almost a decade of losses from rich investors for wing-nut radio to become semi-successful, and these rich guys who invested that money want their return - a direct, unbalanced voice to the American people to push their corporate agenda.....lacking the money to afford years of losses for a radio voice of their own, the internet has become the lay-man's way of getting its own voice out to the people...and I have to say, its been very successful...