Democrat Goals: Government Control of Media

[Tribesman]

Tribesy, are you trying to say Reagan supported the 'fairness doctrine'?

Yes , isn't that what I wrote .
Reagan loved the doctrine so much that he didn't use his Presidential veto to block it becoming enshrined in law , neither did Bush II .
So obviously I was wrong and they really are Republicans not Democrats since if they were evil democrats they would have used uncle Vito to stop the requirement for fairness and honesty in government licensed broadcasting .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Fairness Doctrine was extant law when Reagan took office. It was on the books in one form or another since 1927 as part of the legislation for the Federal Radio Commission and the successor Federal Communication Commission of 1934. So yes, you may blame Republicans, but the chaps involved were Hoover (Commerce Secretary) and Coolidge (who did not run for another term and let Hoover take the fall for a depression he sorta knew was coming).

Along with de-regulating more government than any administration in a LONG while and winning the Cold War, Reagan got rid of the "fairness" doctrine.

Like many pieces of legislation, this one is mis-labeled. Fairness by this definition requires equal time to all major candidates on any controversial or political issue. The new version would seek to extend this "fairness" to all poltical-content broadcasts. So, stations would be forced to air 3 hours of somebody like Franken in order to keep the very lucrative Limbaugh program up and running. OR they would be forced to cancel Limbaugh.

The intent -- an informed public -- is noble, but the means is impractical and functionally counterproductive to free expression.

[Tribesman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fairness Doctrine was extant law when Reagan took office. It was on the books in one form or another since 1927 as part of the legislation for the Federal Radio Commission and the successor Federal Communication Commission of 1934.

Yep and the vote was to get proper firm legislation enshrined due to the result of conflicting Supreme court rulings .

Like many pieces of legislation, this one is mis-labeled. Fairness by this definition requires equal time to all major candidates on any controversial or political issue. The new version would seek to extend this "fairness" to all poltical-content broadcasts. So, stations would be forced to air 3 hours of somebody like Franken in order to keep the very lucrative Limbaugh program up and running. OR they would be forced to cancel Limbaugh.

Yep a problem was that broadcasters found it too much time and effort to find enough type A moonbats to counter every type B moonbat .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes , isn't that what I wrote

You wrote a addled jumble of meaningless drivel, the main point of which seemed to be that since Reagan was President while the 'fairness' doctrine still existed, he supported it as much as the dems who want to renew it.

As to those who don't seem to care about this...Are we not supposed to take the word of democrats on their own intentions anymore in cases like these?
Also, an important part of the article...

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

This is not necessarily just about whether this will get passed into law- it probably won't- it's about how the democrats want to control the media and what that says about them as a political party.

Lemur - assuming Kucinich isnt a filthy liar and the new subcommitee is being formed, it isn't happening without the approval of the democrat machine.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Well you clearly were unable read what I wrote Rabbit.

the main point of which seemed to be that since Reagan was President while the 'fairness' doctrine still existed, he supported it as much as the dems who want to renew it.

Nope Reagan used his veto (just like Bush did) to oppose balanced reporting . So if he opposes fairness and honesty in broadcasting he must be a Democrat right
It is in your view democrats who oppose fairness and honesty in the media isn't it Rabbit .
So is Reagan (and Bush) Democrat or Republican ?
Or is the premise for your topic of the testicular variety ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nope Reagan used his veto (just like Bush did) to oppose balanced reporting

When, and for what law? And why did you also say:

Reagan loved the doctrine so much that he didn't use his Presidential veto to block it becoming enshrined in law , neither did Bush II .

?

So if he opposes fairness and honesty in broadcasting he must be a Democrat right

I never said that.

Or is the premise for your topic of the testicular variety ?

I believe you're confusing it with the premise for all your posts.

CR

[Slyspy]

Surely if the media is the liberal hotbed that you guys claim it is (and how I love the American use of "liberal") then fair reporting would benefit the conservatives?

Or am I missing something?

[Crazed Rabbit]

But what if the democrat controlled gov't were to interpret the long standing liberal bias in the media as moderate and centrist?

Even if conservatives were helped - which is unlikely, as then the dems would not mention it - I would not want such gov't interference in free speech.

CR

[Slyspy]

Why would this only be a tool of the democrats? In the unlikely event of it becaome a reality that is.