Is it fair or is this an assult on free speech?
The dems have tryed to pass this doctrine a number of times, and vow to keep trying....Speaker Polosi has stated that they aim to shut up people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity...do they not have the right of free speech?
2007-05-14
05:49:19
·
21 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
blueridg.....feel free to email me on how I'm distorting.....
2007-05-14
06:20:58 ·
update #1
to justgood...I have one word for you....CAPITALISM...You just can't get it through your head that the market is more conservative!!!!....don't tell me that the main stream media does not lean liberal!!.....what about pbs??...what you want is socialism dope!
2007-05-14
06:29:37 ·
update #2
to alphabet....LIFES NOT FAIR!!!...its time to stop whinning about how unfair things are and toughen up!!
2007-05-14
06:31:58 ·
update #3
cardinall.....what the heck planet have you been watching the news on??....either your brainwashed or braindamaged...good grief!
2007-05-14
07:24:03 ·
update #4
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed because it was old, outdated legislation. When it was first put into place there were many markets with only a few media outlets. It helped to ensure people would hear a variety of ideas, and not be spoon fed the opinions of a few station owners.
Now there are many stations on various formats available, plus the internet. The reintroduction of The Fairness Doctrine is a liberal attempt at running private enterprise by controlling what they will program.
The Fairness Doctrine is alarming because not only does it take way the right of a station owner to cater to the market, it puts the government in charge of what people will hear. The government should not control the media.
2007-05-14 06:26:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by J Angelica 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
When did Pelosi say that? Do Rush and Hannity have the right to play fast and loose with the facts, to deceive their audience? All the fairness doctrine says is that a radio station has to provide equal time. For example if Hannity gives a statistic that is misleading (I'll be kind and not call it a flat out lie) then station should make an effort to set the record straight. Why does the right have a problem with that?
2007-05-14 13:05:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
What is this "fairness doctrine?" Passing a law which would silence voices like Limbaugh or Hannity would be a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. You may not agree with what they say, but they have the right to say it. If people choose to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity, that is where advertisers will want to advertise and broadcasters will make money. These voices will get the best spots on the radio because they are profitable. The radio industry, like any other industry, is in the business of making money.
2007-05-14 12:53:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by msi_cord 7
·
6⤊
2⤋
Right now congress wants to pass a law that is called 'grassroots gag order' or the actual title is Meehan Amendment HR 2093 which will be offered to congress May 15th as part of the lobby reform bill. I'm sure Rush and Hannity will be affected but there are several conservative sites like American Family Association, Right Move, ACLJ, and several others that keep us informed of what is going on in the government. They state the issues and give you a chance to sign petitions or contact your reps. This bill will make it so they will have horrendous amount of red tape to go thru for each person using their site and any violation will be in the tens of thousands of dollars per violation. It could silence these people who can't afford the risk of violations or if they continue and of course someone will find violations they will be forced out. So much for the democratic freedom of speech!!
2007-05-14 13:00:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Historically speaking the fairness doctrine was suppose to help allow all voices to be heard when there was only 3 broadcasting companies to deal with. Which is not the case any more. There is plenty of opportunity for all views to be expressed with literally hundreds of outlets on both TV and radio. The left is this country has decided that since they cannot win in the arena of ideas then they will stifle the ideas all together though use of the fairness doctrine. If they succeed then we have no one to blame but ourselves, for allowing our supposed party leaders to become a bunch of spineless jellyfish with no moral fiber and self control. On a positive note though, if the left succeeds in re-instituting the F.D. then our ideas will still be heard but though venues like XM and Sirius satillite radios.
2007-05-14 13:11:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Robert P 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
Even if they reinstall the Fairness Doctrine, they will inevitably fail in their agenda. You can't force people to listen to Al Franken. The market place always wins. They take Rush off airwaves, he will pop up somewhere else. Meanwhile, AM radio will go the way of the horse and buggy... like the big city papers are today.
2007-05-14 13:02:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately there is no fairness in the US media.
Watch any US news channels with anything approaching an open mind and you will see:
- News and public affairs that are predominatly pro-military and pro-business
- Promotion of policies such as expansive Presidential executive powers and deregulation of corporations
- Critical or absent coverage of progressives Democrats (e.g., pro-peace 2004 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich) and Green party candidates (e.g., Ralph Nader)
- Soft coverage on Republicans and conservative Democrats.
- "Experts" on news programs often come from "conservative think tanks", such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute.
In other words a majority of positive reporting on Republicans and right-wing issues, and critical or absent reporting of moderate, progressive or liberal policies.
This is because the majority of news stations are owned by Multi-billion dollar media conglomerates such as NewsCorp, General Electric and Viacom. The CEOs of these, as well as the CEOs of Disney and AOL Time-Warner are ALL Republicans. Rupert Murdoch (owns Sky, Fox etc) is not a US citizen but he freely admits that his political views are from the right-wing republican mould. Editorial policy is set from the top down in virtually all media organizations. Is it credible to think that a load of right-wing Republicans would really set an editorial policy that is completely opposite to their beliefs?
The fairness doctrine would oblige broadcasters to give a reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance (i.e. they had to tell both sides of the story, not just the corporate republican viewpoint). The repeal of the fairness doctrine by a (surprise, surprise) Republican-controlled FCC during the Reagan era allowed political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to spew their slanted take on the world without ever considering the need to offer anything but a wholly one-sided tale. A simple "Ye-HAWWWW" ruined Howard Dean's political career. Who do you think did that? The "liberal media?" When an otherwise innocuous 10-second slice of videotape can completely destroy a legitimate political candidate, you know you've not got a level playing field.
The question talks about an assault on free speech. The assault happened in the 1980s when the fairness doctrine was scrapped. You frustrated with the lack of fair political debate or want to break the grip of the two-party system? Then BRING BACK the fairness doctrine. It will simply mean that for once, the US media stations will have to report on issues fairly, not just from their narrow right-wing perspective.
2007-05-14 13:21:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Cardinal Fang 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
The best fairness doctrine is the market place of ideas, but since liberals can't win there, Limbaugh also has to be shut up.
2007-05-14 12:57:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by WinOne4TheGipper 3
·
5⤊
2⤋
It's unConstitutional restriction of free speech, the freedom of the press, and freedom of expression.
If Libs want air-time, they can buy it like everyone else. As it now stands, they control 5 of 6 major networks. They will not be happy until they can control ALL speech.
2007-05-14 13:00:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Shrink 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
I think it shows ignorance of modern technology and is pretty naive to think we really need it.
I'm pretty liberal, but it sounds a lot like "oh I'm so persecuted, you have to force people to suppress their opinions because it hurts my feelings!" to me.
Radio will air whatever gets them the most listeners. It has nothing to do with fairness or representing issues. No company should be forced to air programs that people don't care to listen to. It's not like they don't ALLOW more left radio shows and commentary. I think it mostly shows that liberals just don't use radio as their media medium of choice.
2007-05-14 12:58:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋