McCain: Stupid, Insensitive or Evil?

[Damocles]

Thanks for the info supporting my side in thsi argument Damo.

coffins about ban.
Caused much debate about one photo of wounded soldier....

You just don;'t know what the media was like during nam, so you are not qualified to judge the difference.

Again thanks for supporting my side of the argument.

No, you support mine. That is only one story with the photos. You can find far more if you want to. Hence my assertion that if you want that particular imagery then you can get it is true.

Once again, the "Fairness Doctrine" would not bring such pictures into the fore either. It was on presenting opinion. Hence when opinion is expressed in the media the "other" side had to also be expressed, it then limited you to only the two major party's opinion during such a time where "opinion" was being expressed.

I brought those particular stories forward because of the fact that they expressed both sides, all without a Fairness Doctrine.

The only reason that the Dems want it back is because they believe it will end the dominance of Rightwing Talk.

 

[uscitizen]

No, you support mine. That is only one story with the photos. You can find far more if you want to. Hence my assertion that if you want that particular imagery then you can get it is true.

Once again, the "Fairness Doctrine" would not bring such pictures into the fore either. It was on presenting opinion. Hence when opinion is expressed in the media the "other" side had to also be expressed, it then limited you to only the two major party's opinion during such a time where "opinion" was being expressed.

I brought those particular stories forward because of the fact that they expressed both sides, all without a Fairness Doctrine.

The only reason that the Dems want it back is because they believe it will end the dominance of Rightwing Talk.

Yep two links and they were both discussing the squelching of the media in regards to the Iraq war.

On the fairness doctrine, I am glad you agree that rightwing talk dominates.

 

[Damocles]

Yep two links and they were both discussing the squelching of the media in regards to the Iraq war.

On the fairness doctrine, I am glad you agree that rightwing talk dominates.

It does, but seriously, if that is the only thing you wish to end by such a new law then all you are doing is censorship based on opinion elitism.

We do have liberal talk hosts here in Denver, and on the regular talk radio too. Just realizing that Rightwing voices dominate the radio doesn't change every other point that I have made in this thread. That I have more access, not less access to news now than ever before, and choices in networks as well to get differing viewpoints rather than the homogenized government approved news that was presented before. I even explained why I thought it was homogenized with the fact that you could literally change the channel and cut into the middle of the same story on a different network. They didn't even change the presentation order. We used to make a joke of it in our household and do it often.

It isn't nearly as bad now as it was IMO then. You are not going to convince me that your version of censorship is "better" when I can see the result now.

I have more choices in media, I like that. I want to keep it that way.

 

[uscitizen]

It is not Censorship, the firness doctrine only requires that opposing views get heard. How is that censorship ? Not killing the origional message and providing more information with the opposing viewpoint? Strange definition of censorship.

Is an idea that cannot withstand opposition worth hearing anyway ?

 

[leaningright]

"What would YOU have done to try to correct the situation where only those that have a kazillion dollars can get a president elected?"

I don't agree with this notion that is doesn't take a kazillion (love the word) dollars to get a president elected. What is the estimated cost of the presidency today? I saw one estimate that put it at $500 million. To me that is pretty close to a kazillion. What I see that the McCain-Feingold Nazi (I kind of like that reference too) thing did was to silence certain special interest groups by disallowing thier money to be spent towards someone's election. I didn't like that about the act.

I would love to see something that would make it possible for the normal person to have a chance to be elected president. Desh's idea of free air time is not a bad one on the surface but I haven't thought too deeply about it.

 

[leaningright]

It is not Censorship, the firness doctrine only requires that opposing views get heard. How is that censorship ? Not killing the origional message and providing more information with the opposing viewpoint? Strange definition of censorship.

Is an idea that cannot withstand opposition worth hearing anyway ?

Did the fairness doctrine make the opposing viewpoint get heard on the same show? I mean, if one listens to Rush (Ughh) he can then turn around and listen to what's his name....Arken Larken or whatever....can't he? I must admit that I am not up on the intricicies of the fairness doctrine.

 

[Damocles]

It is not Censorship, the firness doctrine only requires that opposing views get heard. How is that censorship ? Not killing the origional message and providing more information with the opposing viewpoint? Strange definition of censorship.

Is an idea that cannot withstand opposition worth hearing anyway ?

It limits the viewpoints to the two major viewpoints, that is censorship. "The Opposing" viewpoint is only a way to assure that we only get the patented and homogenized party opinion. It's a way of ensuring even more that third party or other representation has an even harder time of being heard.

I reject it on a whole as a policy of a government that supports free speech, and believe it to be a violation of the first amendment rights.

 

[Damocles]

Did the fairness doctrine make the opposing viewpoint get heard on the same show? I mean, if one listens to Rush (Ughh) he can then turn around and listen to what's his name....Arken Larken or whatever....can't he? I must admit that I am not up on the intricicies of the fairness doctrine.

It would force them to cut the show in half and bring forward an even more canned and specifically government-approved "fairness" to the other side's opinion. It would make both the show as a whole more canned, as well as the "response". Viewpoints become limited as the networks attempt to follow the law and end up ensuring that all you hear is what has been previously homogenized.

It is censorship, plain and simple. It limits your exposure to even more points of view than of the two major parties as a whole.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"When somebody drives the car into a ditch, you take the car keys away from him/her. "

Yet Ted Kennedy still has his keys.

 

[Lao Tse]

If commentators or analysts portraying the "opposing view" remain silent or refuse to show up, does that mean nothing can be said?

 

[Damocles]

If commentators or analysts portraying the "opposing view" remain silent or refuse to show up, does that mean nothing can be said?

What they used to do during the news was have an editorial only occasionally and have it very limited time-wise. They'd then offer those who want to give an opposing view to have equal time. They'd flash a number on the screen then move on quickly.

This limited opinion to limited time frames, and only to the "opposing" view to the editorial. It kept many opinions from airing at all.

This, of course, did not apply to bias in reporting. So, you could get any number of constant propaganda called "news". Hence the constant pounding of any negative aspect of the war, as there was little or no recourse to get any other reporting.

 

[TRGLDTE]

So, whaddaya all think about John McCain's little failed joke this week? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and all that. No doubt it begins in five minutes.

I think he's already sunk his chances of ever becoming president but I still sent in my twenty five bucks to MoveOn.org, just to help put another hole in the hull.

Aww, gee, I only get to pick one?

 

[uscitizen]

I would like to see a clearer line between reporting and commentating on the news. The line is so blurred now-a-days. Factual news is mixed in with commentaries.

 

[TRGLDTE]

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with the ownership consolidation. They are orthogonal.

Perpendicular and thus mutually exclusive. IN the physical world, an example would be an XYZ coordinate system.