Fairness Doctrine

Pretty much , they keep on getting the liberal ones for such things as child porn. ;)

They were kiddie pics of Karl Rove is the disgusting part.
 
blackascoal said:
Right-wing talk radio survives because right-wing people need to be told what to think.

No surprise.
Click to expand...

Right-wing talk came about and prospered because before Fox News there were very few conservative voices on TV and the mainstream press so this was there outlet.
 
The fairness doctorine will apply to all people no matter their leanings.

This is about the fact that corporations will only finacially support talk that helps them keep their hands arround the neck of Americas government.

This is how they yhave been able to fuck your party so well they own it cawack.

Want your party back from the rich bastards then the fairness doctrine will help you do that. They wont be able to fuck your party with people Like Rush "carrying the water " for this party.
 
cawacko said:
Right-wing talk came about and prospered because before Fox News there were very few conservative voices on TV and the mainstream press so this was there outlet.
Click to expand...

Conservatives had as much access and voices in mainstream press as does the left even before FAUX News.

The mainstream press is owned by corporations and people who align themselves to the right.

My point was that the left does not sit around listening to talk show pundits all day, everyday .. and the left is far more critical of what is being said than is the right .. in my opinion.
 
Desh said:
The fairness doctorine will apply to all people no matter their leanings.

This is about the fact that corporations will only finacially support talk that helps them keep their hands arround the neck of Americas government.

This is how they yhave been able to fuck your party so well they own it cawack.

Want your party back from the rich bastards then the fairness doctrine will help you do that. They wont be able to fuck your party with people Like Rush "carrying the water " for this party.
Click to expand...

So very true.
 
blackascoal said:
Conservatives had as much access and voices in mainstream press as does the left even before FAUX News.

The mainstream press is owned by corporations and people who align themselves to the right.

My point was that the left does not sit around listening to talk show pundits all day, everyday .. and the left is far more critical of what is being said than is the right .. in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You may wish to rethink that position if this board is any indication. Take a look at the vast majority of the threads regarding Bill O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity etc... the vast majority are started by the lefties who probably make up the bulk of their listeners.

Then look at the number of threads with moveon.org or mediamatters as the source material. Then perhaps a glance at the NY Times op ed pieces or See B.S. references. Not to mention the tool of all tools... Olbermann
 
Desh said:
The fairness doctorine will apply to all people no matter their leanings.

This is about the fact that corporations will only finacially support talk that helps them keep their hands arround the neck of Americas government.

This is how they yhave been able to fuck your party so well they own it cawack.

Want your party back from the rich bastards then the fairness doctrine will help you do that. They wont be able to fuck your party with people Like Rush "carrying the water " for this party.
Click to expand...

Again I ask you... in your opinion does this apply to print media as well? All magazines, tabloids, newspapers etc..? All on line sites such as mediamatters, moveon.org etc....????
 
The Fairness Doctrine is stupid. If someone lies about you sue their ass for slander. If they mischaracterize your statments but not to the point of slander someone will run a piece on it, if you are a lefty you can bet your ass Olberman will call them on it and if you are a rightie you can bet your ass that Faux will call them on it. But there is NO FRICKEN NEED for the fairness doctrine.
 
Socrtease said:
The Fairness Doctrine is stupid. If someone lies about you sue their ass for slander. If they mischaracterize your statments but not to the point of slander someone will run a piece on it, if you are a lefty you can bet your ass Olberman will call them on it and if you are a rightie you can bet your ass that Faux will call them on it. But there is NO FRICKEN NEED for the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...

QFT....

But it would be fun if the Dems passed it and then watched as mediamatters, moveon, the NY times and others got bombarded along with Rush etc...
 
Superfreak said:
QFT....

But it would be fun if the Dems passed it and then watched as mediamatters, moveon, the NY times and others got bombarded along with Rush etc...
Click to expand...

To my understanding it only applies to talk radio which is why the left is so much for it.
 
While it would be extremely funny for a little while, in the long run it would not work and just be abolished again.
 
Socrtease said:
The Fairness Doctrine is stupid. If someone lies about you sue their ass for slander. If they mischaracterize your statments but not to the point of slander someone will run a piece on it, if you are a lefty you can bet your ass Olberman will call them on it and if you are a rightie you can bet your ass that Faux will call them on it. But there is NO FRICKEN NEED for the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...

Slander suits are a strange thing. Franken v. Bill O'Reilly, where Billy lied about what Franken said, so he sued. He lost because Bill lies so frequently that it wasn't seen as out of character, e.g. it probably wasn't a direct attack on Franken but just more of what he does best - lie, fabricate, then turn off your mic.

The point being you can't rely on the judicial system to uphold common sense.

No need? 264-0. Thats a discrepancy that reflects most of America and it's a perfect indication of how bad things are WITHOUT the fairness doctrine.
 
cawacko said:
To my understanding it only applies to talk radio which is why the left is so much for it.
Click to expand...

which is why I keep asking Desh if she believes it should apply to all media and not just the forum the conservatives dominate. Somehow I doubt I will ever get an answer to that.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Slander suits are a strange thing. Franken v. Bill O'Reilly, where Billy lied about what Franken said, so he sued. He lost because Bill lies so frequently that it wasn't seen as out of character, e.g. it probably wasn't a direct attack on Franken but just more of what he does best - lie, fabricate, then turn off your mic.

The point being you can't rely on the judicial system to uphold common sense.

No need? 264-0. Thats a discrepancy that reflects most of America and it's a perfect indication of how bad things are WITHOUT the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...

And what will the Fairness Doctrine accomplish in your eyes?
 
cawacko said:
And what will the Fairness Doctrine accomplish in your eyes?
Click to expand...

I take that one....

From the left mantra...

It will allow us to finally have time on the radio waves in which our message can be heard, because our efforts such as Air America simply do not draw enough listeners because our message is not what people really want to hear so we will force them to listen by demanding "fair time".

But the fairness doctrine only applies to media sources like talk radio in which we suck. The ones that we are really good at are not subject to any type of "fairness doctrine" because well, that would be just wrong to disrupt our readers/viewers with the opinions and replies of the right.
 
As for Newspapers, there is already a case where the fairness doctrine was found not to apply to print media. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo 418 U.S. 241 (1974) which overturned a Florida state law requiring newspapers to allow equal access to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content.

Opposed to this and upholding the fairness doctrine is Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)
 
It's not fair that all the rich people and rich corporations in the world belong to the same party---is it ? Did one party give up all of their worldly belongings in pursuit of a spiritual life or do they just suck at capitalism ?
 
Dilloduck said:
It's not fair that all the rich people and rich corporations in the world belong to the same party---is it ? Did one party give up all of their worldly belongings in pursuit of a spiritual life or do they just suck at capitalism ?
Click to expand...
Last time I looked Soros appeared to be REALLY good at capitalism. He should buy a radio network and put left wing talk radio on the AM dial. And then keep shoveling money at it cause no one is listening to it on a national scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top