Fairness Doctrine? Are you kidding me?

Watermark said:
The internet is far more logical than radio, so the progressives own it. Radio, the most antiquated, irrational of mediums, is naturally dominated by conservatives, but it's fading quickly into oblivion. The fairness doctrine would be pointlessness upon pointlessness.
Click to expand...

LOL

Thats why Obama made a specific point of referencing Rush in his speech regarding the spending bill, that's why Move-on.org rolled out ads against Rush, that's why Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched a web site, all because Rush Limbaugh is insignificant.

This cunt is only bringing this up because her fuck of a husband is Tom Athans, former CEO of the liberal-progressive Democracy Radio, an organization that produced and supported liberal talk radio shows that formerly included the Ed Schultz Show. He is now the executive Vice-President of another liberal talk radio organization Air America. He is looking for a bailout since libtards won't listen to his radio stations.

Her husband was also caught last year paying for the services of a prostitute to get his cocked sucked for $150.00. Instead of him going to jail, he squealed like a bitch and turned in the prostitute.

http://tinyurl.com/d5w93m
 
uscitizen said:
I support the fairness doctrine in it's origional form.

I also support the banning of paid lobbiests.

I see little difference in the paid programming of the airwaves with political porpaganda and lobbiests.

The hatred and division that the hatemongers have brought into America sucks.
Bush would never have become president had the fairness doctrine still been in place.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

and how did obama get in office then?
 
Watermark said:
The internet is far more logical than radio, so the progressives own it. Radio, the most antiquated, irrational of mediums, is naturally dominated by conservatives, but it's fading quickly into oblivion. The fairness doctrine would be pointlessness upon pointlessness.
Click to expand...

this from the guy who said talk radio was fading into oblivion :rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
:rolleyes:

and how did obama get in office then?
Click to expand...

Don't worry dude that guys a joke. So he wants to muzzle speech on the radio but not on television. Being that partisan hack that he is he's convinced himself he's come to his political conclusions (supporting Democrats) "independently" while the only reason someone votes Republican in his mind is they have been brainwashed by talk radio. Ok. A very parochial world view.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes you did have a reason. To plant the seed of fear.
Click to expand...
When did you become such a Watermark? Pretending it scares you for me to talk about imagining something. Weak. Just plain silly. Either you are reverting to a four year old mentality or your hack-alert badge started going off when somebody spoke negatively about the un"Fairness Doctrine".
 
uscitizen said:
You understand. But a nice playoff.
Click to expand...
The biggest thing was, the post had nothing to do with anything like that...

I was saying I was glad I didn't have to worry about it here. You just read your own negative spin into things your hack alert goes off and you start spouting things that make no sense.

The qualifying word in the sentence was "imagine", meaning that it was "not real" I think I may be able to get past your alzheimer's and get you to understand ideas like "not real".
 
Damocles said:
The biggest thing was, the post had nothing to do with anything like that...

I was saying I was glad I didn't have to worry about it here. You just read your own negative spin into things your hack alert goes off and you start spouting things that make no sense.

The qualifying word in the sentence was "imagine", meaning that it was "not real" I think I may be able to get past your alzheimer's and get you to understand ideas like "not real".
Click to expand...


Wordplay Damo. OK so why did you insert that into this thread in such a manner?

Imagine if P&G put H2SO4 in your bath soap.
 
uscitizen said:
Wordplay Damo. OK so why did you insert that into this thread in such a manner?

Imagine if P&G put H2SO4 in your bath soap.
Click to expand...
Because I own the board and had imagined what it would be like if they tried to apply it here. I then shared the thought with the rest of the board in the form of a post.

And yeah, questions like the last one go through my mind all the time, usually better ones. I call them plot ideas and some that I think are good enough even make it into notebooks for later attempts to flesh them out. "What if" is one of my favorite things, it drives my love for Science Fiction, both reading and writing...

But, hey, if you really want to believe I tried to scare you, if it really makes you feel better, then I will not mock you for it any longer.
 
DonQuixote said:
lets just get rid of talk radio altogether
Click to expand...

Seems awfully convenient to do away with the lone corner of media dominated largely by conservatives. Meanwhile, the left-leaning televised media will get a free pass. Is that how it works? :)

I just don't believe government should be in the business of deciding which forms of speech are allowed and which are not. Last time I checked we still have a 1st Amendment and it carries just as much weight (if not more) than when it was ratified.
 
Chapdog said:
Seriously Dem's - Rein in your extremism. Im gonna start thinking I made a HUGE mistake voting dem this last election. Seems they are no holds barred going for socialism.


WASHINGTON – Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," adding, "I feel like that's gonna happen."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "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. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place."

Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year "to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable," she replied: "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."

Meanwhile, as WND has previously reported, other Democratic legislators have tried to claim talk about a reintroduction of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is merely conspiracy-mongering by right-wing talk radio and its partisan cheerleaders.

But other Democrats in the Senate and House – and even a few Republicans – have made no secret of their support for such legislation.

"For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. "I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."

In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine."

"Yes," Pelosi answered.

And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on bringing it back.

"It should and will affect everyone," Eshoo pledged.

Meanwhile, President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told Broadcasting & Cable during the presidential election campaign, "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible."

But the debate heated up again recently when Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, for criticism: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

As WND reported, the Democratic National Congressional Committee also launched a petition to reprimand Limbaugh directly for his criticism of Obama.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.

In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged "Fairness Doctrine" label.

"That's just Marketing 101," McDowell explained. "If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand."

Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.

McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, "Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"

And while Republicans' prediction of "Fairness Doctrine" legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren't just fear-mongering, as some have suggested. A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.

In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.

"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."

The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."

To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are "operating on behalf of the public interest" to maintain their broadcasting license.

And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC's new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."

In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the "Fairness Doctrine."

Since the report's release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta's think tank.

Last summer, in denying the presidential candidate's support of the "Fairness Doctrine," Obama's press secretary said, "Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Further, the White House website lists on its technology agenda page that the president plans to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

The president's position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair's think tank report almost word-for-word.
Click to expand...

Hey it's public airwaves. Republicans don't have a right to dominate them with their propaganda because their plutocrats have more money. How the hell does that equate to socialism? What is it about this little bugaboo scare tactic. Anything Republicans don't like and it's *GASP* Socialism!

Propaganda outlets, like Fox News, who purposefully deceive the public by masquerading as news should be regulated, as should the right wing propagandist on talk radio and to a much lesser extent, left wing talk radio who should be held accountable for the veracity of their programs. It's patently silly that a moron of the magnitude of Rush Limbaugh should be a king maker in one our two parties. Hell that's even worse for Republicans, in the long haul, then it is for Democrats.

Ultimately it's public property that these propagandist are playing in and they will have to play by the publics rules.
 
Watermark said:
Wow. Can you guys seriously believe the audacity of conservatives? DEMS rein in their extremism when they've virtually given the conservatives everything their wildest wet dreams asked for?

The Dems are the Republicans welcome mat. That's it. They are as moderate as can be. The Republican version of moderatism is doing everything the Repblicans ask.
Click to expand...

That's one of the few damned things you've ever said that made sense. You are correct. That is the Republicans idea of being moderate and yes, this is a case of projection. The Republican party is the one that has been guilty of extremism as the Dems are now ruling from the center and doing a much better job of keeping their wakos in line than the Republicans have.....for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top