Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

You mean the Andrew Jackson who caused all the Indian deaths with the "Trail of Tears" murders? Is that your hero?

 

I say that Ken should balance out his program with a little hip-hop. We all know how much black people hate bluegrass music. It isnt fair that he only plays bluegrass music.

 

I think that it would only be fair to put Rush Limbaugh's show on NPR.

 

You don't understand. The "fairness doctrine" is a one way street.

 

But that's not fair !!!:tear:

 

I'm still waiting for someone that supports the fairness doctrine to address this.

 

My show is not on public air waves.

 

Matt, I think the fairness rules would only apply to commercial stations. Stations in the 87-92 dial range on FM are only educational, community, and non-commercial. That's why you see NPR and the religious stations in that area ususally.

 

:BangHead:Wow...Obama is upfront about his evil control over America! Now it's up to us to make our voices heard and put an end to this path of destruction he is taking our beautiful country!

Who supports this on the BB?

 

There are plenty of Christian stations that are not in the 87-92 range and would be considered commercial stations (several owned by Clear Channel, which is certainly commercial) as well. What about those?

 

I don't know, Matt.

All of the religious stations are in the 87-92 range in this area.

Frankly, Matt, I put the chances of a fairness doctrine becoming law within the foreseeble future as next to nothing.

 

Here is an example of what I am talking about. I know this is from Canada but it illustrates a good point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRB6gqbEhaM&feature=related

Now I am no Palin supporter but I think this person should have to back up this dribble with facts or keep silent. I felt the same about accusing her child of being her daughters.

Now if average Joe wants to stand on the street corner with a sign and say this stuff then so be it. I believe the media should be able to report what they choose but I think they should legally have to be as factual as possible.

 

Unfortunately I don't see the same low chances as you Ken. With the current group of Congress and President, it's quite possible. While the fairness may initially be aimed at political commentary, if worded the right way it could slide right in religious speech as well.

 

There are around 20 million people who listen to conservative talk radio and if such a bill got pushed in the Congress then Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al, would get them worked into such a rage that the Congress would not dare pass it.

 

Why then were Rush Limbuagh, Sean Hannity, et al not able to get the same 20 million people worked into such a rage that Congress would not dare pass the spending bill?

 

Losing a daily 3 hour radio show has an immediate impact, targus. Those opposed to some provisions of the jobs bill won't feel any immediate impact. Besides, don't conservatives that listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, like the huge portion of the bill devoted to tax cuts?