Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

Slick Willie has weighed in on the issue

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/12/bill-clinton-hey-you-know-what-we-need-the-fairness-doctrine/

The money conservative radio host earns comes from sponsors and advertisers. They have no George Soros funding the operation. They garner their listening audience with hard work. They are not given a time slot to fill some bureaucratic need.

Hey lib radio host, try being entertaining, laugh at ourself, work hard. Attract and keep an audience entertained and informed. EARN IT.

What is the democrat party, seemingly opposed to freedom and liberty?

 

The real agenda is to kill conservative talk radio and TV. Do they really think that the broadcast media will put some liberal on the air that nobody will listen to?

Besides, the liberals already have access to the mainstream media. In fact, they are the mainstream media.

 

Get ready. I forecast that in less than 10 posts, someone will post on this thread and say, "that's not really going to happen...you're just using a scare tactic."

More and more people who are willing to trash the First Amendment are lining up under the banner of "fairness." With regards to this issue, they are anti-American and anti-freedom.

 

If you take all the media as a whole, that is TV, print media, and radio and make two lists. One list of all the liberals and another of all the conservatives, which list do you think would be longer? The answer is obvious. With the exception of Fox News (and even that is at times debatable) and talk radio, the liberals dominate. What are they complaing about? Can we not have our little bastion of conservatism? Talk radio?

 

The airwaves - AM and FM radio and television channels 2-13 ad the UHF channels(if they still exist) on television belong to the public - which is what this debate concerns. I have no problem with the Fairness doctrine applying to those airwaves owned by the public.

 

I seriously doubt this will even come up for a vote let alone pass. It is not 1960 and we have only three main choices for our news.This is just rhetoric.

 

I am a conservative, most who know me know this, but I don't really have a problem with the doctrine in this sense;

I watch Oreilly and I use to like Hannity and Colmns because they bring on speakers from both sides of the issues. By donig this the left wingers are exposed as to how foolish their arguments are. If all you have is a conservative preaching to you about how foolish the liberals are it isn't as convincing as hearing it straight from the horses mouth.

Bring-em on! Let the world hear their distorted views. I think it would do the conservative radio a service they are not considering. Just think, you have the left-wingers right there in front of you and you start shooting questions at them and let the public listen to them try to defend the indefensible!

Anytime I ever watched a liberal try to defend such things as global warming or Evolution they just come off as idiots. Lay the facts on them and watch-em squirm!

Hey, speaking of Evolutionist, I was on the history channel the other day and there was a woman on there explaining why modern women expect the man to stick around and help raise the kids. She was talking about how the chimps and apes are our closest relatives and how the females take care of raising the kids while the male just goes about mating whom he will and making babies. She said this changed when we began to stand up and walk on two feet because prior to this the female could carry the kids on her back and it was pretty easy for her, but when she started walking on her feet upright she now had to carry the kids in her arms and it was alot tougher, so she now needed the male to help her out, so this is how the men had to start helping with taking care of the children.

Yeah, let-em speak! We have nothing to fear. :laugh:

 

Steaver,

That is all fine, but why should a station be forced into hiring someone that will bring in less ratings that would negatively affect their profits? No, the idea is outdated and has no place in this day and age with modern media and communications available to all.

 

Maybe I don't understand the details. I thought shows like Rush would just be required to have opposing viewed guest on.

 

No. I believe the stations would be required to air a show of the opposite view if they air the Rush show. And because of that cost factor many stations would just drop Rush (or any other conservative show) instead.

 

Oh, if that is the case then it is a raw deal indeed.

 

Even so, your point is still extremely valid.

This board just verifies your theory -- er-r-r- facts!

Like a quote I saw t'other day:

"Americans got tired of other countries thinking they were idiots, gullible, and naive, so they went to the polls last Nov 4 and proved it!"

 

Since you insist that the national media is completely liberal I am surprised you don't support this. That is unless that often heard claim just isn't true.

 

The truth is that the democrat/leftists want to stifle all dissent, just like all totalitarian governments.

 

Yeah, OR, we haven't had an election in soooo long in this country we don't know what one looks like.

 

Most all those are liberal run and operated, and thus not a focus of this legislative thrust.... Even so, I have a big problem with the govt. deciding program content, i.e. any "Fairness" doctrine, what ever they label it...
The focus is Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, in short, those perceived as conservatives with large followings..... They expose the leftist agenda for what it really is, and that cannot be tolerated, if possible...

 

Question to those that support a "fairness doctrine". Should the "fairness" extend to religious stations? Should Christian radio stations be forced to have an opposing view point? After the Gospel message is given, should they have to have someone give an account of atheism, islam, hinduism, buddism, and sikhism?

 

We finally escaped the grip of the totalitarian government, Bush and his Neo-Con brownshirts.