Tom Tomorrow nails it

Cypress said:
Seriously, Damo - don't you understand what the fairness doctrine was?

cable would not be subject to the fairness doctrine. Its provided to consumers through private infrastructure, and does not use the public airwaves.
Click to expand...
I do, however the Internet was not a huge factor before, and is both private and public. I wanted to know what people thought of that. I simply asked a question, you act like I proposed something. Get over yourself. I am simply wondering what people thought.
 
Damocles said:
Like I said, much like Cable Television. Would the "Fairness" Doctrine apply there?
Click to expand...

already answered.

Seriously Damo, I think you need to read about the history of the fairness doctrine, and the legal background on which it was based, before you pontificate on it.

In short, the publically owned EM and Radio spectrum were subject to the fairness doctrine. Since its a public trust.

Privately owned communication infrastructure is not subject to the FD.
 
Cypress said:
already answered.

Seriously Damo, I think you need to read about the history of the fairness doctrine, and the legal background on which it was based, before you pontificate on it.

In short, the publically owned EM and Radio spectrum were subject to the fairness doctrine. Since its a public trust.

Privately owned communication infrastructure is not subject to the FD.
Click to expand...
Once again, get over yourself. Asking a question is not "pontificating". I asked a specific question to see what people wanted.
 
fair enough damo.

I just get frustrated, because no Conservative I've ever met on a message board ever understood the legal basis of the fairness doctrine. They are always like you, tossing out false alegations that the FD would regulate sattelite, cable, and private publishing.
 
All radio airwaves are public domain...controlled by the government...a radio station must purchase the given frequency to operate am-fm...as for satellite this opens a can of worms as the transmission also goes through the air...cable on the other hand goes through wire and is for the most part private transmission...now the question becomes...Do we really need Soviet style control on all of the above..."Fairness Doctrine" I think not as we are a capitalistic society let the consumer control what they want to listen to...the old off button is the fairness doctrine! imho
 
Yeah sorta kinda. I do the same thing, but I don't think we are typical viewers Battle ;)
I think for the most part the media controls the masses.
 
Damocles said:
No, it sounds like you only want the one side, a return to that glorious age when the Liberals controlled the media spin and there was no recourse for those with a differing opinion. That you pretend not to know that the media is dominated by writers/reporters that are liberal is only because you know it would benefit you if you got this back. Rather than several sources of information we would once again have only the one.
Click to expand...

I don't know of this age you speak of. Certainly, it has not been that way since I have been an adult. Although it does sound wonderful!

I do wonder though, if this liberal utopia existed, and there was no room for other views, how on earth did we ever get the age of McCarthy?
 
Darla said:
I don't know of this age you speak of. Certainly, it has not been that way since I have been an adult. Although it does sound wonderful!

I do wonder though, if this liberal utopia existed, and there was no room for other views, how on earth did we ever get the age of McCarthy?
Click to expand...
That one was much earlier, at that time the media was dominated by the Conservatives. Shoot, Kennedy would have been thrown out of the Party or sidelined like Zell Miller, he would simply be considered too conservative for y'all.

It was the late 60s and early 70s where that was taken over by the Liberals... College indoctrination appears to work. Anyway, it's been a long time with a Media that was dominated by Liberal views, then the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed and suddenly another view began to emerge. Now both views are spread about on many different channels, we get information and views from more than just the one side's lean. It's an amazing thing this actual Free Speech.
 
Damocles said:
That one was much earlier, at that time the media was dominated by the Conservatives. Shoot, Kennedy would have been thrown out of the Party or sidelined like Zell Miller, he would simply be considered too conservative for y'all.

It was the late 60s and early 70s where that was taken over by the Liberals... College indoctrination appears to work. Anyway, it's been a long time with a Media that was dominated by Liberal views, then the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed and suddenly another view began to emerge. Now both views are spread about on many different channels, we get information and views from more than just the one side's lean. It's an amazing thing this actual Free Speech.
Click to expand...

I see. Well, I was not old enough to know then, so I can't say.

But the media is not liberal today. I must remind you that it was none other than the satanic NY Times who advocated for the Iraqi war Damo.

The liberal media simply does not exist, and there is no balance.
 
Darla said:
I see. Well, I was not old enough to know then, so I can't say.

But the media is not liberal today. I must remind you that it was none other than the satanic NY Times who advocated for the Iraqi war Damo.

The liberal media simply does not exist, and there is no balance.
Click to expand...
I haven't said it was lately, have I? LOL. However, a few editorials does not a right-wing paper make.
 
Yes Damo, Cypress makes a good point here. It went far past editorials.

They put false BS straight from Dick Cheney onto the front pages of their news section. That's big. And then Dick Cheney went onto Meet the Press and said "as the NY Times reported today"...using a story HE planted, to make his case for the war.

I mean, it was really terrible. I couldn't believe it. I still can't, really. I wrote some letter to them, let me tell you about that Judy Miller and her farethewell drama. I didn't see one word indicating she had given one thought to all of the dead. It was all "me me me". They didn't print it, they never print anything I send to them, they think that I am a nut. But they read them, you know how I know? A friend of mine called them to question them about an editorial they had run from this guy talking up Iranian nukes (it read exactly like the editorials before the Iraqi war), and they said to him "oh yeah, we got your letter, your from ny" And he said, uh, no. It was pretty funny.
 
Damocles said:
If you have noticed they certainly aren't Bush cheerleaders lately.
Click to expand...

Its not the job of a paper to be a presidents cheerleaders. Thats what Fox News does.

Newspapers are supposed to be government watchdogs. The NY Times hounded Clinton for 8 years over whitewater, monica, and vince foster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top