Fairness Doctrine

uscitizen said:
well since you did not watch any media news you would not know about the media cheerleading then. you just explained it to yourself.
Click to expand...

I read multiple newspapers and thanks to this great new invention called the internet one can view sites like CNN and Fox News while at work and not have to sit at home at night watching entire shows. Not to mention there are plenty of bloggers on the left and right that report on what the major networks are talking about.

So with a little creativity one does not to sit at home and watch the nightly news and still be up on what is going on.

Thank you for your concern though.
 
I don't think the unFairness doctrine would have fixed this one. Too often the D opinion was the same as the R opinion. Where it wasn't it was reported and shown on the channels I have given above, shoot even Fox had that D lady with the smoker's voice calling for more time for Blix.

The unFairness Doctrine wouldn't have done much to stop that tide. Especially since Darla's newspapers wouldn't have been included in it, as they aren't airwaves. The airwaves did show the other side, people just didn't listen.
 
Darla said:
Here in NY, where the most influential newspaper in the country resides, we had The Ny Times, Newsday, The NY Post, and the Daily news, all for it.

It's great that the Denver post was against it Damo, but nobody gives a crap what is in the Denver Post, and the above the fold stories in the Denver post are not repeated on all of the news channels, both local and cable, across the nation. The stories in the Ny times, are.
Click to expand...
The Times would not be covered by the unFairness Doctrine. It is not public airwaves.

And very rarely do I get a report of the NYT as news here in Denver. You get it there because it is local. Why do people in NY think they are so much more influential to the rest of the nation than they are?
 
Damocles said:
The same Dan Rather than pretended he had information during an election that wasn't real? He certainly wasn't on the side of the President in everything now was he?

However, they did report on Blix saying he needed more time, they did report on the protests, they weren't ignoring the other side. I'm supposed to just forget those reports because you say they weren't there? It ain't going to happen.

Nor will I forget the false memos or other indicators of where Danny boy's politics lie, or such indicators of which way the lean of the station went.
Click to expand...

In fact that information was very real, those papers have never been definitively debunked as fraudlent, and it was a brilliant ploy to deflect from the KNOWN FACT, that George w bush had strings pulled for him to get out of Vietnam and into the Texas air national guard, also know as "the champagne unit".

Further, that has absolutely nothing to do with the pumping and selling of this war, two years earlier.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I agree with cypress. This is more about media consolidation. There needs to be stiffer laws against letting too few own too much of the message.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this as well. Competition would open up actual reporting again. Instead of just reading the wires we might get an investigative report of something of consequence.
 
Superfreak said:
Darla... but at that time, the majority of Americans were for it. The stations pander to what the public wants to hear. They gave up reporting news a long time ago.... all they care about is ratings. Which is why conservative talk radio does well... they get ratings.
Click to expand...

SF, were the majority of Americans for it because they largely only heard one point of view, the "a mushroom cloud will be the "evidence" if we wait"? If they had more access to dissenting opinions across the board, would they still have been for it?
 
Darla said:
In fact that information was very real, those papers have never been definitively debunked as fraudlent, and it was a brilliant ploy to deflect from the KNOWN FACT, that George w bush had strings pulled for him to get out of Vietnam and into the Texas air national guard, also know as "the champagne unit".

Further, that has absolutely nothing to do with the pumping and selling of this war, two years earlier.
Click to expand...
Dude even admits that they weren't checked and the lady who gave them said, "Well that is what he WOULD have said!" as her defense. That is more than enough for me to know that the LEAN was more important than the accuracy of his reporting. Anybody who can say this with a straight face and BELIEVE that they were real after hearing that lady's defense is seriously a partisan hack.
 
Damocles said:
The Times would not be covered by the unFairness Doctrine. It is not public airwaves.

And very rarely do I get a report of the NYT as news here in Denver. You get it there because it is local. Why do people in NY think they are so much more influential to the rest of the nation than they are?
Click to expand...

Oh, you got it there. Right from the wingbag himself, on Meet the Press.

"As even the NY times is reporting this morning..." We must attack Iraq. As even the Ny Times says!
 
Damocles said:
The Times would not be covered by the unFairness Doctrine. It is not public airwaves.

And very rarely do I get a report of the NYT as news here in Denver. You get it there because it is local. Why do people in NY think they are so much more influential to the rest of the nation than they are?
Click to expand...

LOL... my initial response when I read that (not personal at Darla) was f*ck New York.
 
Darla said:
Oh, you got it there. Right from the wingbag himself, on Meet the Press.

"As even the NY times is reporting this morning..." We must attack Iraq. As even the Ny Times says!
Click to expand...
Meet the DePressed is Network news? Come on now. It is an editorial show.

Rarely do we ever get it reported as NEWS. Do you read your own arrogance there? "We are so influential our newspaper is reported as news"... Well it isn't. It is used in editorial shows.
 
Damocles said:
Dude even admits that they weren't checked and the lady who gave them said, "Well that is what he WOULD have said!" as her defense. That is more than enough for me to know that the LEAN was more important than the accuracy of his reporting. Anybody who can say this with a straight face and BELIEVE that they were real after hearing that lady's defense is seriously a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have used the papers without more evidence that they were real. However, they were not debunked as frauds for certain, and that remains an open question.

Dan rather f'd me, not you. He killed that story forthe White house. Because, George W bush did dodge Vietnam, George W bush did use family connections to get into the Texas champagne unit, and someone did die in George w bush's place. And, in the context of that campaign, where those sick SOB's made a war hero into a cowardly traitor, and a cowardly traitor into a war hero, that TRUE story, mattered Damo.
 
Damocles said:
Meet the DePressed is Network news? Come on now. It is an editorial show.

Rarely do we ever get it reported as NEWS. Do you read your own arrogance there? "We are so influential our newspaper is reported as news"... Well it isn't. It is used in editorial shows.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are way off here. Yes, Meet the Press is a news show, and the NY Times is the paper of record, and as such, it has great influence on papers across the country.

My arrogance? I don't own the NY Times Damo. I am jsut stating facts, I take no pride in them.
 
cawacko said:
LOL... my initial response when I read that (not personal at Darla) was f*ck New York.
Click to expand...

YOu are both letting some misplaced jealousy, or resentment of NY blind you to the facts.

If you don't understand the importance of the ny times in the media world, you're ignorant of our media, and it has nothing to do with NY.
 
I never heard any major media organization in the country, report the things I was reading in the independent and european media:

That the evidence for actual WMD was dubious.

That is was totally unlikely for Saddam to be allied with al qaeda.

That the claims of uranium from niger were bold faced lies.

That invading and occupying iraq would be much harder and more expansive than Bush's minions let on.

That, while the iraqi people mostly hated saddam, they were not going to be happy about an american invasion and occupation.

That civil war might break out.

**************************************************


I remember when Fox News took Scott Ritter off the air. Ritter - a former UN weapons inspector - was shredding every pro-war hawk, in every debate. Then, he dissapeared from the air. That's partly when I knew for sure the war was on, and the media was on board with it.
 
Darla said:
They shouldn't have used the papers without more evidence that they were real. However, they were not debunked as frauds for certain, and that remains an open question.

Dan rather f'd me, not you. He killed that story forthe White house. Because, George W bush did dodge Vietnam, George W bush did use family connections to get into the Texas champagne unit, and someone did die in George w bush's place. And, in the context of that campaign, where those sick SOB's made a war hero into a cowardly traitor, and a cowardly traitor into a war hero, that TRUE story, mattered Damo.
Click to expand...
One more time. All of this showed it was the LEAN that mattered and not the information. Whether he dodged the draft or not was already known. Kerry's actions in VN are a matter of opinion as to his "hero" status.

When the lady says, "Well that is what he would have said..." It tells me that what she supplied was not on the up and up. Also when I find out that this unchecked story was supposed to go out the next week, which would give no time for a response from the Administration it really tells me it was the politics and not the news he was reporting.
 
Cypress said:
I never heard any major media organization in the country, report the things I was reading in the independent and european media:

That the evidence for actual WMD was dubious.

That is was totally unlikely for Saddam to be allied with al qaeda.

That the claims of uranium from niger were bold faced lies.

That invading and occupying iraq would be much harder and more expansive than Bush's minions let on.

That, while the iraqi people mostly hated saddam, they were not going to be happy about an american invasion and occupation.

That civil war might break out.

**************************************************


I remember when Fox News took Scott Ritter off the air. Ritter - a former UN weapons inspector - was shredding every pro-war hawk, in every debate. Then, he dissapeared from the air. That's partly when I knew for sure the war was on, and the media was on board with it.
Click to expand...

They are confusing what the media started reporting, months after the initial shock and awe campaign, when reality could no longer be denied, with what they were reporting when the "decision" to invade Iraq was being made. Or, the pretense of this decision was being made. Beause, of course, it was decided on long ago. And that is also something that the media did not report.
 
Damocles said:
One more time. All of this showed it was the LEAN that mattered and not the information. Whether he dodged the draft or not was already known. Kerry's actions in VN are a matter of opinion as to his "hero" status.

When the lady says, "Well that is what he would have said..." It tells me that what she supplied was not on the up and up. Also when I find out that this unchecked story was supposed to go out the next week, which would give no time for a response from the Administration it really tells me it was the politics and not the news he was reporting.
Click to expand...

NO, bush was denying that his father pulled strings to get him into the guard, that was a lie. He also has lied about whether or not he showed up for duty. Give me a break.
 
Darla said:
They are confusing what the media started reporting, months after the initial shock and awe campaign, when reality could no longer be denied, with what they were reporting when the "decision" to invade Iraq was being made. Or, the pretense of this decision was being made. Beause, of course, it was decided on long ago. And that is also something that the media did not report.
Click to expand...


Other than Ritter (who was "dissapeared" from the media, about December 2002), there were no strong, credible anti-war voices put on the major cable news networks.

I mean he was a real technical expert, on the matter. After him, At best, we'd get to see Whoopi Goldberg, or Mike Farrel, presenting the real anti-war viewpoint. C'mon: Hollywood actors? Bless their hearts, but they weren't experts. Ritter was. As were many other experts they could have invited. But didn't. And recall, this was before virtually anyone knew who Howard Dean was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top