Fairness Doctrine

[JakeHero]

With the upcoming elections a fringe of the Democratic Party has demanded that a bill called the "Fairness Doctrine" be put into effect on Talk Radio(Ironically, only talk radio and not cable news). This initiative has gained scorn from republican and moderate politicians alike, claiming that it breaches Freedom of the Press and the First Amendment.

To put it into colloquial language, the Fairness Doctrine would require radio stations to devote 50% of its time to presenting the opposing view. This means a private company that has Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as commentators, would be obligated by law to run differing opinions, regardless if it's a private frequency/company or it wants to or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrin e

Comments please?

[SyntheticTacos]

What? No. Hell no! First Amendment please, people!

[Memorize]

Now what I would like to see is a Republican group introduce a fairness bill that required the Media, Newspapers ect. to the do the same thing, and require them to introduce a 50% positive view on Iraq.

Considering how twisted all of the major media outlets are today... that wouldn't be half bad...

[Elfer]

Sounds like a pretty stupid idea to me. Are people really too dumb to escape their radio's clever trickery?

Besides, loophole: Have incompetent people present the opposing view.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/29/07 11:22 PM, Memorize wrote: Now what I would like to see is a Republican group introduce a fairness bill that required the Media, Newspapers ect. to the do the same thing, and require them to introduce a 50% positive view on Iraq.

Considering how twisted all of the major media outlets are today... that wouldn't be half bad...

Are you serious? I mean, really serious? 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment.... *glass of water* 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

Congress shall make no law. Congress shall make no law! CONGRES SHALL MAKE NO LAW! CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Sorry.

This is a obvious restriction on freedom of the press. I mean, really obvious As noticeable as the FCC running into your house, drilling a hole in your head and pouring liquid dog feces into your brain. So maybe that's a little graphic, but wow. These congressmen must have known this goes against the Bill of Rights. Anything like this should require a constitutional amendment, and if there was actually support for that kind of thing.. oh dear.. @_@

I don't care what side of the political aisle you're on, this kind of thing is an extremely huge violation of freedom of the press.

Elfer said: Besides, loophole: Have incompetent people present the opposing view.

I do believe that's what Fox News does by putting a moderate like Colmes in a political debate show by a hard-right guy like Sean Hannity and then calling him "a hard-hitting liberal". But you know what? That is within Fox News' rights, because they are the press, and they have freedom of the press. So does Air America. Freedom of the press is a fundamental value in any free nation; a blatant violation like bringing the sort of thing JakeHero (or the alteration Memorize described) said is abhorrent.

*wipes sweat off forehead* Good day! :D

[InsertFunnyUserName]

That ridiculous. If a radio station wants to portray just their liberal opinion (or conservative opinion) they should be able to do just that.

Good Lord, what happened to the first amendment?

[stafffighter]

Sounds like it'll alienate listeners and clutter up the schedual. And they couldn't regulate cable tv if they wanted to because it's not on a public resource. Yay broadcasting and tellecommunication degree.

[Korriken]

you guys are JUST NOW hearing about this? I've known about this for months now!

[Memorize]

At 6/29/07 11:45 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Are you serious?

...Maybe... <.< >.>

Congress shall make no law. Congress shall make no law! CONGRES SHALL MAKE NO LAW! CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Hm... yet whenever religion enters in, that part of the bill of rights is never mentioned...

Freedom of the press is a fundamental value in any free nation; a blatant violation like bringing the sort of thing JakeHero (or the alteration Memorize described) said is abhorrent.

I'm just saying. Considering other nations require their press to print something good about their country every now and then...

Besides, it would probly help with the amount of stupidity invovled in this nation as it is when you look at our major media track record.

[IllustriousPotentate]

It's ridiculous. What logic is there that a private entity should be forced to allow people to use it? And why stop at talk radio? What about newspaper editorials? TV commentary? Why just talk radio, other than the fact that when liberals try to enter talk radio, they tend to fail, like Air America?

"No one wants to listen to our ideas on the radio, huh? Well, then we'll make them!"

I tell you what. I'll support this legislation when and if the Democratic party dedicates 50% of it's TV and radio advertisements, campaign literature, and platform to the Republican viewpoint. After all, it's only fair.

[Proteas]

At 6/29/07 11:45 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Elfer said: Besides, loophole: Have incompetent people present the opposing view.

... wasn't that the whole point of "Air America" to begin with?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 6/30/07 01:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/29/07 11:45 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

I'm just saying. Considering other nations require their press to print something good about their country every now and then...

And who decides whats good news?

The government and the party that's in power.. I mean really, do you want the federal government to tell newspapers what is the good news that have to print.

Maybe there's a reason that we have freedom of the press.

[ForkRobotik]

At 6/30/07 11:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 6/30/07 01:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/29/07 11:45 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

I'm just saying. Considering other nations require their press to print something good about their country every now and then...

And who decides whats good news?

The people that own the newspapers/tv channels.

The government and the party that's in power.. I mean really, do you want the federal government to tell newspapers what is the good news that have to print.

They do that all the time. When have you ever seen a reporter ask Bush Jr. why he lied to the people about WMD's in Iraq? The newspapers never questioned him, much like now and the nuclear program that Iran has. What news channel has actually come out and been critical of the whitehouse stance that "Iran is a theocracy and if they have a nuclear program, it must be because they want to nuke Europe and Israel!!!"

Maybe there's a reason that we have freedom of the press.

Freedom for the highest bidder. The FCC ensures that joe schmoe can't start his own radio station and propagate whatever views he wants, but it's no problem for a rich man to hire some crazy wacko(like rush). Look at what Murdoch did to fox news when he took over that station.

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/07 12:13 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: They do that all the time. When have you ever seen a reporter ask Bush Jr. why he lied to the people about WMD's in Iraq?

Because that reporter would be libel to be sued for misinformation and slander.

[ForkRobotik]

At 7/1/07 12:32 AM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/1/07 12:13 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: They do that all the time. When have you ever seen a reporter ask Bush Jr. why he lied to the people about WMD's in Iraq?

Because that reporter would be libel to be sued for misinformation and slander.

The whitehouse website has a speech by bush saying he found mobile bio-labs in iraq. LOL. It's about 2/3s down if you're too lazy to read the whole speech.

[JakeHero]

At 7/1/07 12:43 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: The whitehouse website has a speech by bush saying he found mobile bio-labs in iraq. LOL. It's about 2/3s down if you're too lazy to read the whole speech.

So how does this prove he lied to go to Iraq?

[Memorize]

At 7/1/07 12:43 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

The whitehouse website has a speech by bush saying he found mobile bio-labs in iraq. LOL. It's about 2/3s down if you're too lazy to read the whole speech.

Bio-lab =/= WMD. Considering Saddam did used to have WMDs and chemical weapons, it's only natural to find bio-labs.

Those wheels aren't turning very fast in your head, are they?

[Memorize]

At 7/1/07 12:13 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

Freedom for the highest bidder. The FCC ensures that joe schmoe can't start his own radio station and propagate whatever views he wants, but it's no problem for a rich man to hire some crazy wacko(like rush). Look at what Murdoch did to fox news when he took over that station.

Or maybe we could be like ABC and leak information about undergoing covert operations.

I wonder why everyone only talks about FOX. Is it because they're practically the only right leaning station?

Yup.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/1/07 12:13 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 6/30/07 11:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 6/30/07 01:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/29/07 11:45 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

The people that own the newspapers/tv channels.

Because Survey says. Thats what fucking sells.

They do that all the time. When have you ever seen a reporter ask Bush Jr. why he lied to the people about WMD's in Iraq?:

You do realize that a newspaper is also supposed to show non bias and acts as more of a medium for other people that want to ask that.

For example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/
3718150.stm

The newspapers never questioned him, much like now and the nuclear program that Iran has. What news channel has actually come out and been critical of the whitehouse stance that "Iran is a theocracy and if they have a nuclear program, it must be because they want to nuke Europe and Israel!!!"

Because then it would no longer be a fucking newspaper and it would turn into Move on. org
Even back with the Watergate Scandal. The Washington Post put up a semblance of unbias.

Freedom for the highest bidder. The FCC ensures that joe schmoe can't start his own radio station and propagate whatever views he wants, but it's no problem for a rich man to hire some crazy wacko(like rush). Look at what Murdoch did to fox news when he took over that station.

So, can you find me the law that says that the FCC doesn't allow private radio stations.

[EmoNarc]

My two cents...

I think that this should definately be implemented for government radio and television (ie npr and pbs for the states) but as for privately owned companies... they should be able to do whatever they want to! Freedom of the press... heard of it?

[Noddys-Revenge]

Off topic but how the hell is that ironic?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 7/1/07 10:08 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

You do realize that a newspaper is also supposed to show non bias and acts as more of a medium for other people that want to ask that.

If that's what the guy who owns it wants to make it about. A newspaper can be as biased as it wants; what annoys me is when they are biased and claim to be unbiased Fox News-style.

[SlithVampir]

The fairness doctrine is wrong.

Anybody dissagree?

End of thread.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/1/07 04:31 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 7/1/07 10:08 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

If that's what the guy who owns it wants to make it about. A newspaper can be as biased as it wants; what annoys me is when they are biased and claim to be unbiased Fox News-style.

Yes, yes the Bias of Fox News, How new and revolutionary.

Did you ever wonder why no one takes blatantly biased papers serious, or where there are such organisations such as the Associated Press.

There are certian rules and regulations, while defacto, within the news organistation.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 7/1/07 11:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

There are certian rules and regulations, while defacto, within the news organistation.

They can be defacto within the industry but they must NEVER be de jure.

[saijm]

At 7/1/07 12:32 AM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/1/07 12:13 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: They do that all the time. When have you ever seen a reporter ask Bush Jr. why he lied to the people about WMD's in Iraq?

Because that reporter would be libel to be sued for misinformation and slander.

Actually no. Bush being a public official does not have the legal ability to sue for libel or slander under the law. Political figures, elected officials and other people working in a similiar function are not able to sue for libel or slander dealing with those things that are a part of their official functions.

[Imperator]

. When have you ever seen a reporter ask Bush Jr. why he lied to the people about WMD's in Iraq? The newspapers never questioned him, much like now and the nuclear program that Iran has.

What are you serious? What the hell news do you watch/read/listen to? I hear that junk all the time. Shit, last CNN special I saw was on the second topic you listed....

[Elfer]

At 6/30/07 05:44 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/29/07 11:45 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Elfer said: Besides, loophole: Have incompetent people present the opposing view.

... wasn't that the whole point of "Air America" to begin with?

Yeah, this is the problem with a fairness doctrine sort of idea. People will be tricked into thinking that they're getting a balanced view of the news, and they'll be even more smug about their convictions, because they've been fed a bunch of straw man arguments as a representation of the opposing side.

I know this is a lot to ask, but can't people look at multiple views and come to their own conclusions on each issue?

I guess not. And that's why democracy don't work.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/2/07 04:36 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 7/1/07 11:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

They can be defacto within the industry but they must NEVER be de jure.

And thats what Seperates the New York Times form Move On. Org.

[Nitroglys]

The worst part of theis all is that it is another restraint on the american people. It is not a leveling of the field it is sliting the throat of having an opposing enemy. It takes away the voice of anyone who wants to oppose anything. It is a continuation on the patirot act. They are slowing chiping away at the doctrine that makes us free. When will the facisct regieme end. O ya in 08.