McCain: Stupid, Insensitive or Evil?

The fairness doctrine forced opposing viewpoints to be aired, not just the one someone was paying for.
So It is not an enforced viewpoint, just opposing ones.
 
uscitizen said:
The fairness doctrine forced opposing viewpoints to be aired, not just the one someone was paying for.
So It is not an enforced viewpoint, just opposing ones.
Click to expand...

BUt the problem is, all the socialist commie arguments make people turn the radio off. People don't like to listen to lies. So the unintended(?) consequence was the elimination of all political talk.
 
AssHatZombie said:
BUt the problem is, all the socialist commie arguments make people turn the radio off. People don't like to listen to lies. So the unintended(?) consequence was the elimination of all political talk.
Click to expand...

I have not listened to anytihing but music and NPR on radio since Rush and his types appeared on the scene...btw that was after the fairness doctrine was rescinded ?
 
AssHatZombie said:
BUt the problem is, all the socialist commie arguments make people turn the radio off. People don't like to listen to lies. So the unintended(?) consequence was the elimination of all political talk.
Click to expand...
He asked specifically what the cancellation of the un-"Fairness Doctrine" had done to the media.

I said that it allows us far more choice in media rather than being forced to watch what has the "Government Stamp of Approval" *ahem* I mean what is "Fair" according to the Benevolent Dictatorship... CRAP! I mean...

Well, there is no good way to say it. If it didn't have that special stamp of approval from the Great and Beneficent Deciders they were fined a ton and forced to portray that which had the stamp of un-"Fairness".

I prefer to get my news from a "monied" source than to only be fed what the government approves of.
 
Damocles said:
He asked specifically what the cancellation of the un-"Fairness Doctrine" had done to the media.

I said that it allows us far more choice in media rather than being forced to watch what has the "Government Stamp of Approval" *ahem* I mean what is "Fair" according to the Benevolent Dictatorship... CRAP! I mean...

Well, there is no good way to say it. If it didn't have that special stamp of approval from the Great and Beneficent Deciders they were fined a ton and forced to portray that which had the stamp of un-"Fairness".

I prefer to get my news from a "monied" source than to only be fed what the government approves of.
Click to expand...

YEs. I tend to agree with you on this one. THough the ownership consolidation is real and marginally bothersome, I think it's still preferable to the regulated hell you describe. One can find various viewpoints if one is even partially curious. We must vigilant about control and censorship of the internet.
 
Umm the current govt would not approve of liberal viewpoints right now, so what is your point ? And if a liberal govt was in power the con viewpoint would not be approved of. But under the fairness doctrine they both would be shown.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm the current govt would not approve of liberal viewpoints right now, so what is your point ? And if a liberal govt was in power the con viewpoint would not be approved of. But under the fairness doctrine they both would be shown.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. This ignores that the party in power for decades that controlled the law on the subject didn't seem to care when the alternate viewpoint was misrepresented. It also limited the viewpoints to two POVs and not the myriad of opinions to which I now have access.

Government approved news is limiting, it did not lead to more choices in media it led to a homogenized version of "Newspeak" so that it didn't matter which channel you turned to it was all the same.

I prefer the less homogenized version now. Could it be improved? Sure, almost anything can be. But not through more Government-Imposed-Viewpoint-unFairness.
 
Government approved news ? Hmm was the news approved during the Watergate scandal ? Mei Lai incident, etc.....
We now have govt approved news.. How many dead us soldiers do we see on the news now vs during nam ?
And how would the people react if dead and maimed US soldiers were shown on TV. Not the way our current govt wants that is for sure.
 
uscitizen said:
Government approved news ? Hmm was the news approved during the Watergate scandal ? Mei Lai incident, etc.....
We now have govt approved news.. How many dead us soldiers do we see on the news now vs during nam ?
And how would the people react if dead and maimed US soldiers were shown on TV. Not the way our current govt wants that is for sure.
Click to expand...
I pretty much hear instantaneous reports of attacks on troops in Iraq. How often did we hear of the civilian deaths in North Viet Nam during those times? How often do we hear of them in Iraq. We are constantly barraged with those numbers nowadays. Had VN been happening now we would have human interest stories about the North Vietnamese, we'd have constant bickering over questioning tactics... We'd have... Well, pretty much what we have now.

Instead during that time much of what came out came later in the war, people were shocked by the abhorrent behavior of Americans. Soldiers were spat upon, rules were set in place that made it far more difficult for anybody there to do their job correctly.

Everything you put forward seems to support my viewpoint on this one Uscit. Really, I far prefer what we have now to the government-approved reporting during the (un)"Fairness Doctrine".
 
Watermark said:
TV stations shouldn't be required to perform a "public service" any more than you or your landromat should.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with being required to perform a public service. People should be required to perform public service. All people and all companies.
 
Damocles said:
I pretty much hear instantaneous reports of attacks on troops in Iraq. How often did we hear of the civilian deaths in North Viet Nam during those times? How often do we hear of them in Iraq. We are constantly barraged with those numbers nowadays. Had VN been happening now we would have human interest stories about the North Vietnamese, we'd have constant bickering over questioning tactics... We'd have... Well, pretty much what we have now.

Instead during that time much of what came out came later in the war, people were shocked by the abhorrent behavior of Americans. Soldiers were spat upon, rules were set in place that made it far more difficult for anybody there to do their job correctly.

Everything you put forward seems to support my viewpoint on this one Uscit. Really, I far prefer what we have now to the government-approved reporting during the (un)"Fairness Doctrine".
Click to expand...


Numbers are one thing damo Graphic images are another. The media is not even allowed to view the coffins coming back carrying our dead family members..Ever seen a dead American or mangled soldier on the media from Iraq or Afganistan ?

Pretend the coverage of this war is the same as Nam if you want to but it is just not true.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I have no problem with being required to perform a public service. People should be required to perform public service. All people and all companies.
Click to expand...
Right Bush and many republicans talk of public service and volunteer work all the time. Bush has funneled a lot of money to religious organizations for their "public service"
 
uscitizen said:
Numbers are one thing damo Graphic images are another. The media is not even allowed to view the coffins coming back carrying our dead family members..Ever seen a dead American or mangled soldier on the media from Iraq or Afganistan ?

Pretend the coverage of this war is the same as Nam if you want to but it is just not true.
Click to expand...
Pretend that we get "none of the bad news" from the war all you want, but it isn't true.

You can get constant graphic images as well as photos of the coffins returning, pretending that you cannot is unrealistic. That you must seek them out is a better rather than something worse. That they are unavailable is simply lying to yourself.

So far you have presented nothing to prove that I cannot get the same information, and definitely more, than was provided during Nam. You still have yet to convince me that the media is somehow underreporting such things at this time. You want the homogenized "see exactly the same images" government-approved media that was here before the un-"Fairness Doctrine" was rightly done away with. I disagree vehemently. I don't want the government to approve of my media access. I don't want to only get the images that they deem "fair". I don't want opinion limited to the "two" different opinions on every show that "must" be represented to the detriment of any other opinion outside the scope of this limitation. I don't want my media to be limited to only give editorialization on the "two" approved party's platforms.

Seriously, I don't want the limitation that this puts on media, because I will get LESS, FAR LESS, than I currently can view.

I want none of that to return because I have far more now than ever before.
 
Pretend that we get "none of the bad news" from the war all you want, but it isn't true.
//

Spin just spin, I never implied or said that Damo. You are also trying to compare web sources to the mainstream news media. Not a reasonable thing to do considering most still get their news from the networks.
ABC, CNN, FOX, etc....

but it can be a useful view if you want to ignore the facts.

I was there during Nam and I am here now....

You would have lots better odds of convincing me of the existance of God than to convince me the coverage of Iraq is anything like it was during Nam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top