A Liberal Opposed to a New Fairness Doctrine By Whatever Name

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    I believe, as former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said may years ago, that the Fairness Doctrine is basically antithetical to First Amendment principles. Once government attempts to control content over the airwaves, today it may be my side (liberal) that is helped — but tomorrow it may be the other side who complains about too many liberal talk show hosts. And then what is the position of those who want to restore the Fairness Doctrine? To rescind it all over again?

    As much as the overwhelming dominance of conservative talk shows frustrates me (and the decision by all-too-many program managers’ and owners’ decisions to exclude or minimize talented liberal talk show hosts angers me), I still don’t trust government to be involved in content decisions — whether over the air, on cable, or the Internet.

    I guess this makes me a First Amendment liberal conservative (!)

    See Here
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    Boortz suggested they are going to do this through "Localization" in other words limit the number of syndicated programs station can air.
     
  3. BigBossman

    BigBossman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's one thing that liberals need to look at, is that they are subject to the laws that they create. The other thing too is if the law gets passed, how will PBS & NPR cope with this? They are known for the extreme liberal slants. The crazy part is our tax money funds their airtime & we have no say-so as to what they can air. Simply changing the station won't help because our money is constantly going to them.
     
  4. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll say it again: Supporting the Fairness Doctrine means that one does not believe in freedom of speech. It is perhaps as anti-American an idea as has been proposed in many years.
     
  5. BigBossman

    BigBossman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very true indeed.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776

    A lib on Fox this morning called it "almost totalitarianism".
     
  7. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, it isn't a First Amendment issue. You can say what you like. Radio regulation is totally another.
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    The state needs to walk a fine line in telling America what it can and cannot say on TV or radio. And if you are going to support this un-American idea of squelching free speech on radio you need to support it on TV as well to be consistent. Otherwise you just expose your agenda without doubt.

    Again this is simply un-American in its finest form.
     
  9. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK then...well...don't speak your mind at the courthouse, because that is the government's. Don't speak your mind on, at, or near the roads or sidewalks because those are the governments. Don't speak your mind at any libraries because those belong to the government. Now that socialized medicine is becoming a reality, don't speak your mind at any healthcare facility...because those entities are government-regulated.

    Hope your shoes have good tread on them. That slippery slope gets pretty treacherous.

    Last time I read the history books, Washington was against King George's "fairness doctrines."
     
  10. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing "fair" about "Fairness Doctrine"......

    Just another great example how evil is cloaked in words which sound good...... words which by definition impart a meaning opposite of their intended performance: Words intentionally used, deceptive tools of evil.
     
  11. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    My 'fairness doctrine' is words should mean what they say and say what they mean. ....... This I believe although I may mis-use words as much as any.... but not intentional.... unless satire or sarcasism is intended.... Rare.

    Example of other words used to fool the masses and gain acceptance of programs, agencies, or laws:

    [Other examples.... 'planned parenthood' which main mission is not that of helping couples who want children, or helping bring children into the world..... but who's intended purpose is reduction of population, population control, government interference into parenting, and promoting 'free [email protected]' via contraceptive controls and/or premature and unnatural pregnancy termination.

    "War against Cancer"....... and we've had substantially increases in cancer occurrence. Whether or not there is any correlation is not the point: In this war, pharmaceutical companies and university research and grants are based more on the treatment or extention of life rather than the irradication or reduction of disease: While the public still eats the food and drinks the water, and breathes the air......... more research dollars are dropped into development of new "treatments"........ and not on identifying the known alterations already apparrent in our most basic environment which differs from yesteryears when fewer people had cancer: Our food is largely 'designer' GMO, or picked pre-mature and suspended in ripening or then hastened to ripen once at market.... Our water is altered from naturally occurring minerals and purities found in nature: The flouride additive is a known pesticide.... not resembling the natural flouride in nature...it is a industrial waste product with no good use and a problem for safe disposal except and until the people are sold the misinformation that it is beneficial. Chlorine saves lives by extending the purity of water and controlling bacteria.... but its consumption over periods of time was not intended and did not occur in the nature which God originally provided to sustain life. But industry is protected: There is no independant research to prove levels of safety or establish whether or not nutrition is altered.... or the availability of nurtrients for sustaining of health. There is little to naught invested in identifying complexities of molecular processes advantageous to life or comparison of the natural with that which is altered by man's design and for his conveinence.

    "War against drugs"....... and there seems to be more drugs than ever. One hears of small prosecutions based upon possession, use, or distributing, and occassional large shipments caught.... but very little ever occurs regarding the organized crime or conspiracy which keeps them available or intervention to destroy the hidden economy and the street price.

    "Deregulation"....... which has little to do with policy and rules within businesses.... and more to do with reducing the competition and diversity presented by multiple providers and monopoly development. Banks consolidate.... and if business goes bad... the small banks survive but the big ones are overextended in a profit grab .....and when default...rewarded with bailouts and/or buy outs.... the smaller continuing w/o assistance because of good business practices. Utilities consolidate: Instead of competing for the purchase of the cheapest energy sources and passing the adjustments and savings to the custormers.... they are consolidated and then obligated to buy from sources which control both profit and access and options.

    "Privatization of services" which sounds like services are offered and provided by a self sustaining business when it is still government monies (and tax revenue funded) but the employees no longer have civil-service protections from political involvements, or wage scales, or benefits, and contracts with the government promote individual profit taking under the cover of privatisation.

    "Food and Drug Administration" which is the super enforcer and controller of consumer's access to alternative choices of treatments, natural supplements and 'traditional', cultural, or folk remedies....... but haven't the man power to prevent contaminated heperin from entering our markets; or allow beef which did not show 'downers' until time of slaughter (suggestive of disease, poor care, or mad-cow disease) to go to market; or take cyclamate off the market but allows aspertaine to receive high promotion with few cautions; or accepts the industries own lab reports and esperimental summaries, protects industries patents and piority information from revealation or independant investigations and inquiry into genetic modification of foods, or residues of chemicals in soil or absorbed into the food supply through plant and animal sources: or concerns itself with the lead paint which might be residual on used toys and furniture in a charity used store..... but can only warn of fish which may be grown in contaminate waters with lead or mercury.... and do not have insistant guidelines to the medical teams regarding the removal of lead bullets, shrapnel, or shot from people who've been at the wrong end of a gun..... some of whom have lived a long life with the lead still in them. (Don't mistake.... I think lead is extremely toxic... but I also think there is some room and arguement for common-sense consideration which should bring into proper proportion those extremes of fear which are preyed upon the public.)]
     
  12. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    59
    That's Orwellian double-speak, heavy use of euphemisms and inversion of word meanings. The "Ministry of Truth" is where the government tortured political dissidents in the book.

    At first I didn't realize the OP was quoting Lanny Davis - this is an attempt to suppress free speech, pure and simple. I think it's an ongoing point of dispute at the the WH:

    That's a pretty clear "NO" to me. Liberals shouldn't want this thing to pass, it can be turned against them one day.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    As I said Boortz suggested it will be repackaged under the guise of localization. If that is true it will give Oliar an opportunity to be against it publicly while supporting it behind the scenes.
     
  14. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    59
    Localism, you say?

    http://www.fcc.gov/localism/

    Yeah. And he was for transparency in government and against bloated budgets. I think he's playing good cop/bad cop with his Congress again. He will probably *explore* the "diversity ownership" aspect as well.

    ACORN wants it, 'nuff said.
     

Share This Page

Loading...