View Full Version : Debate: - the fairness doctrine
Hooahguy
11-05-2008, 16:22
now that obama is our new president, i think there is a good chance this will be passed.
if this does pass conservative talk radio will have to stick to the internet, which will probably end up regulated as well. :sweatdrop:
thoughts?
ICantSpellDawg
11-05-2008, 16:29
We'll see.
I heard Schumer's argument. It was inane; "The government regulates pornography on air - therefore it must regulate everything. Anything else wouldn't be consistent."
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=213073
Did anyone else notice that his eyes kept drifting back and forth? I will bet you that this will be a tough year for Schumer. I haven't seen him that off of his game before and those eye movements are bizarre for him. Anyone know what, other than brain cancer, could cause that? Is it just a new twitch?
Hooahguy
11-05-2008, 16:33
so then by that same argument, there should be a conservative argument for every liberal op-ed for the NY times and a conservative argument for every liberal TV talk show.
EDIT: after all, radio talk shows are like op-eds, right?
It would have been nice if the OP would have explained for us non-US citizens what this obscure "fairness doctrine" is about.
Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine).
edit, read before posting
I haven't seen him that off of his game before and those eye movements are bizarre for him. Anyone know what, other than brain cancer, could cause that? Is it just a new twitch?
could be something like Nystagmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nystagmus)
but It´s not very noticeable on this video so I don´t know.......there is an actor that has Nystagmus and on that guy it´s waaaaay more noticeable.
Tellos Athenaios
11-05-2008, 16:53
I think Fox is going to have a hard time (too), then.
ICantSpellDawg
11-05-2008, 16:59
It would have been nice if the OP would have explained for us non-US citizens what this obscure "fairness doctrine" is about.
Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine).
Some programs will do that naturally, others will not. I approve of general toothless oversight, but I also realize that in a polarized nation you may hear an extreme argument on one channel and an opposing argument on another. Others still will have legitimate discussion. With so many methods of acquiring information I believe that a healthy natural balance will be better than the government policing the airwaves.
English assassin
11-05-2008, 17:09
Voltaire (BIG fan of Fox) said it all on this topic.
How can this doctrine square with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech includes, alas, the freedom to express ignorant biased and downright mischievous views. After all, my enlightened common sense is someone else's dangerous nonsense. (I am right, and they are wrong, but that is another story:beam:).
Do we even want fairness? I am hugely entertained by the Daily Show. I am comforted in my elite euro-liberal weenieness by what I hear of right wing shock jocks. I don't want either of them turned into the broadcast equivalent of angel delight.
The only exception to my mind is a broadcaster like the BBC, which is publicly funded. They should be required to carry a broad range of views. Otherwise, cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of broadcasting.
Besides in these days of the interweb does anyone seriously think you can regulate things anymore?
ICantSpellDawg
11-05-2008, 17:10
Voltaire (BIG fan of Fox) said it all on this topic.
How can this doctrine square with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech includes, alas, the freedom to express ignorant biased and downright mischievous views. After all, my enlightened common sense is someone else's dangerous nonsense. (I am right, and they are wrong, but that is another story:beam:).
Do we even want fairness? I am hugely entertained by the Daily Show. I am comforted in my elite euro-liberal weenieness by what I hear of right wing shock jocks. I don't want either of them turned into the broadcast equivalent of angel delight.
The only exception to my mind is a broadcaster like the BBC, which is publicly funded. They should be required to carry a broad range of views. Otherwise, cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of broadcasting.
Besides in these days of the interweb does anyone seriously think you can regulate things anymore?
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
Also, didn't you mean to say "interwebs"?
Hooahguy
11-05-2008, 18:15
It would have been nice if the OP would have explained for us non-US citizens what this obscure "fairness doctrine" is about.
Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine).
oops.... :embarassed:
Strike For The South
11-05-2008, 18:18
This wont pass, at least not in the form its in now. The power players in the demo party know this will play right into the arms of the GOP. They should wait and then pass this when they have absolutely crushed the GOP to the point of fracture. At the point pass the bill.
Saying that I abhor this bill.
Hooahguy
11-05-2008, 18:22
"crushed the GOP"
what defines this? a total collapse in the GOP, much like the Federalist party in the early 1800's?
Strike For The South
11-05-2008, 18:24
"crushed the GOP"
what defines this? a total collapse in the GOP, much like the Federalist party in the early 1800's?
To the point were it fractures. An unlikely possibility but not impossible
Don Corleone
11-05-2008, 19:29
EA, you've got nothing to fear. The Daily Show agrees with Senator Schumer's ideological outlook, so it will be considered "middle of the road". The big contention with the so-called Fairness Doctrine has always been that it was not applied even handedly. I disagree with Strike. Not frothing at the mouth, but based on the choice of Rham Emmanuel as Chief of Staff (announced today), the first two pieces of legislation to get passed in January will be the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine (quiets dissent, bans people like Jay Severin, Neil Boortz, Michael Savage and of course, Rush Limbaugh) and the Card- Check act. I'm actually going to start another thread for that one.
Hooahguy
11-05-2008, 21:26
bans people like Jay Severin, Neil Boortz, Michael Savage and of course, Rush Limbaugh
thats the problem. the people with the most amount of people listening to them (like the ones you mentioned) would be silenced.
sorry, but in my book, thats an infringement of free speech!:whip:
they can say whatever they want. its a TALK SHOW. they are paid to run their mouths about anything they want! im sure if they were liberal talk shows there wouldnt be a peep from the dems about a fairness doctrine.
its not the news people who are bending the news. in fact, i find that the radio news networks (750 WSB, 920 WGKA where i live) are much more honest and straightforward about the news than any TV show or newspaper. no op-eds, no dumb commentary. just the straight facts, and when it came to the election, not a peep about who they were going for.
if they dont like conservative talk shows, which are BY FAR more popular than liberal ones, they can just turn the :daisy: channel. but dont ruin the fun for us!
i see no reason to enact the fairness doctrine, and doing so is an infringement on free speech, IMO.
:whip:
Tribesman
11-05-2008, 21:35
I think Fox is going to have a hard time (too), then.
How will that be ???
Fox is fair and balanced already
Seamus Fermanagh
11-05-2008, 21:36
Stop presuming that Schumer and Pelosi are idiots as well as ideologues. They're well aware of the hullabaloo that would result from any attempt to re-introduce or reactive the "fairness doctrine."
They'll use that one as the obvious target. While the right-wing radio hosts and company start defending thier paychecks and "rallying" the right, they'll pass two or three quieter pieces of legislation -- like the one about union voting -- without much fuss or ado. In the end, they'll move forward on other areas while taking a "loss" they can afford. Any real effort to impose the doctrine again will occur after the 60th senate seat is secured in 2010.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.