| Conservative talk show hosts have used media to spread hate and discontent and should be subject to the Fairness Doctrine. |
|
|
|
Asked 1 year ago
by suzannabanana1  Germany |
|
About
I don't have any particular political affiliation but will attach myself to certain issues. I don't like "jargon" to describe people or issues, like "liberal"; I think it's lazy and replaces critical thinking. I read a lot and I put polls up on issues when I want to compare my opinions against those of others. Often I'm surprised and that's what I like about Ask500. I'm back in Maine (thank god) now after having spent 8 months in Germany and 6 weeks in Krakow, Poland.
I'm getting ready to go back to Warsaw to get some dental work done. I need a kick in the pants to make me appreciate my homeland again. I'm so tired of the political divisions that seem to be insurmountable. No amount of pleading seems to make either party consider the welfare of the people they represent first.
In July I'm going to Jelenia Gora, Poland to finish the dental work. One of my sons is coming with me. I despair for my country. We elect a president and then try to tear him down and expect miracles from someone who in the end is only a human being. And yet we don't try to support and help him. It's sad. If you want to see what a failed country is like travel; maybe you will appreciate what you have and try to contribute instead of trying to destroy it just because it doesn't always reflect your personal desires and wants.
|
11 Points
|
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Well, of course the answer is Yes.
The Fairness Doctrine was established in 1949! It is not censorship. If so, then Amercia during the "good old days" was very much into censorship.
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. It should not be confused, but often is, with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance; the Equal Time rule only deals with political candidates.
The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have generally not ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation."
Or... could it possibly be that the demands of the marketplace favor conservative shows and audiences over progressive ones?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Yeah. Folks like this man love it!
---
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- An out-of-work truck driver smiled Monday as he pleaded guilty to killing two people and wounding six others at a Tennessee church last summer because he hated its liberal politics.
Several church members felt Adkisson showed no remorse.
"When he came into the courtroom, he had a look of sheer evil on his face. He really did. Evil as well as arrogance," said Vicki Masters, who directed the children's play.
The judge gave Adkisson a chance to talk to the congregation before sentencing him.
"No, ma'am," he snapped. "I have nothing to say."
"He is in the right place, and I am very satisfied," said Brian Griffin, who directs the Sunday school program. "This is justice. He is gone."
John Bohstedt, one of the church members who tackled Adkisson, said he didn't believe Adkisson was insane, but was manipulated by rhetoric aimed at liberals.
"Unbalanced, yes. Bitter, yes. Evil, yes. Insane, not in our ordinary use of the word," Bohstedt said.
"There are a lot of people who hate liberals, and if we stir that around in the pot and on the airwaves, eventually there will be people (like Adkisson) ... who get infected by the violent rhetoric and put it into violent action," he said.
Bohstedt said he was worried about future violence: "Do you think there are other Jim Adkissons out there listening to hate speech? I do."
If that is your argument for censorship, you're not far from the rubber room.
Well, of course the answer is No.
Your assertion is not exactly correct. The Fairness Doctrine did not require honest or equitable (or fair), just balanced. It only required the presentation of opposing points of view, not an equitable presentation.
Clearly in the Internet age the premise of the Fairness Doctrine no longer applies, since media channels are virtually unlimited.
The Fairness Doctrine is NOT/was NOT censorship.
The fairness document is censorship and it should upset the entire population of the US if anybody tries to bring it back.
The only fairness in broadcasting whether on the radio or telly should be personal choice. If you don't like what is being said, CHANGE THE FREAKING CHANNEL!!! Don't try to tell someone else they can't listen to or watch something because you don't like it. That's communism and there isn't anything fair about it.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyYou are fear-mongering. The point of the Fairness Doctrine was never censorship or communism (you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means). It was to have balance in content where there was little or no choice (as in the early days of broadcast television).
If you could only get one channel and it was all Olbermann all the time, that would be as bad as all Hannity all the time (okay, it wouldn't really, but you get the idea).
Having said that, In the Internet age, there is no longer any need for the FD.
It is not fear-mongering but it is censorship. When you don't let people see or hear what they want it's censorship.
Ah, but that's not what the Fairness Doctrine says. It does not stop people from seeing or hearing what they want. It simply says that, on public policy issues, if you are presenting one side, you must also present the other side. It does not stop, or prevent, you from presenting anything. Surely you are not against "fair and balanced" are you?
Hence the battle cry of Fox News... remember?
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyIt's not a question of telling "the truth." It's a question of presenting both sides of the issue when public policy is being discussed. CBS and NBC (but not Fox or MSNBC) would be just as impacted as anybody else. However, the Fairness Doctrine did not/does not apply to cable or satellite or Internet. It only regulates the "public" airwaves.
You guys really are creating a tempest in a teapot.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyActually, he's absolutely wrong, because the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with censorship or communism.
Another thing Suzannabanana1, maybe you should mention how German radio and TV are government controlled and they suck. Maybe you should also mention that a lot of people have sat-dishes and cable and watch television and listen to radio from other countries because of that. Maybe you should mention that the most watched shows on the TV are the US and other foreign shows because of the low quality of what the Germans put out. Maybe you should also mention that the biggest part of the people want more foreign programs but due to,(I don't know exactly what they call it here), the German Fairness act, they have to air a certain amount of German produced shows and the ratings don't match. Every time you give the government control the people don't get what they want but only what the gov wants to give them. Huh?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
The most important reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is to improve the declining intelligence of the average U.S. citizen. Since it's removal, we have become increasingly stupid as a nation. Why? Because we believe things said on radio and TV that just aren't true!
Examples:
"Saddam was involved in the attacks of 9/11."
"Waterboarding is not torture."
"Obama is a muslim."
"George Bush is smarter than you think he is."
Another example: "BobUs is not an asshole."
Really? When did you hear that on radio and TV, MikeHend?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Proves the point, doesn't it. Mickey does not disagree with the BobUS's point!
You mean Ask500 implements a "fairness" doctrine? *GASP* Damned Canadian communists. ;o)
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 1 year ago by deleted user Replyhttp://media.fukung.net/images/6919/cc2d6e9e.jpg
Is there anything fair about the fairness doctrine? It sounds silly to me that we would allow the government to regulate free speech. It's just another department for bureaucrats to waste a bunch of our tax dollars...
The fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with regulating free speech. It is simply an attempt to live up to the Fox News motto: You know... fair and balanced.
Does anyone else think that Suzannabananna1 spews more hate and discontent than the entire republican party?
wow are u serious... if i understand this question like i think i do then whoever voted yes to it and posted is a complete asshole its called free speech... not to mention the whole liberal media, of course nothings said about that. if you think they should take conservative talk radio away then well i cant say it but its called free speech and you don't have to listen in simply change the station... this question disgusts me
Then you don't understand the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine which is to ensure that both sides of policy issues are presented by stations which receive a PUBLIC license to use the PUBLIC airwaves. It does not require equal time, it does not suppress anyone's free speech rights. But the larger point is that it only affects the limited PUBLIC broadcast spectrum... not cable, not satellite, not the Internet.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyHow is it not governing free speech? Because nobody is stopping Limbaugh from saying whatever he wants. But Limbaugh is not on 24 hours a day (much to your chagrin, I'm sure). I'm sure they could spare a few minutes from their schedule to allow an opposing viewpoint to be expressed on matters of public policy. You see, the station operates under a license. Have you ever heard the term, "fair and balanced?" Of course you have.
Does this means that if I own a company that prints conservative posters and T-shirts, I should have to print just as many liberal ones too? Are private companies out of line for having agendas or themes?
If people think something is bad, silly, or wrong they should simply leave it alone. But people aren't leaving conservative talk alone because they like it!
Please read for comprehension.
1. The Fairness Doctrine only applies to publicly licensed airwaves. Not cable, not satellite, not Internet, not posters and T-shirts.
2. The Fairness Doctrine does not require "equal" time, only that when discussing public policy opposing viewpoints are also presented.
3. Private companies can do anything they want... but when they use government regulated resources (i.e., the airwaves) they have to apply for a license and follow government rules.
4. Nobody is actually seriously thinking of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and the Internet pretty much renders is irrelevant.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
People aren't interested in liberal talk radio. If they were, there would be more liberal talk. The market has proven that Air America and NPR are enough!
What you're advocating is not "fairness", but a way for government to undermine the desires of private companies through force.
Nobody said anyone was interested in liberal talk radio. But people should be interested in "fair and balanced." Pop quiz: Who's slogan is "fair and balanced?"
The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to companies who ask for a government license to use public airwaves. Your characterization of it is as false as suzannabanana1's when she asked the question.
Perhaps what we should be discussing is a fairness doctrine for NPR, given that they get tax dollars to display a liberal bias..
Why are you singling out conservative talk shows ? Why being selective ? Since they are considered entertainment, wouldn't you also want this to apply to sports events coverage like the Olympics ?
The Fairness Doctrine only applies to discussions of public policy using publicly regulated airwaves. So if they were discussing public policy at the olympics, yes. Shot-put, not so much.