Leaving alone the rest of the Media. There is no equal time on PBS and the rest. The Liberals are boycotting Fox and trying to take Fox down. Mrs Edwards seeks to deny Ann Coulter a Forum, So would you conclude that the Liberals believe they are the only prople who have the constitutional right to speech?
Trent Lott and Goober Graham will be taken care of.
2007-06-27 07:40:21 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine is? It's mandating that anyone using our public airwaves to give equal time to BOTH sides of the issue. Left and right. Pro and con. It's the OPPOSITE of censorship because it forces media moguls/conglomerates to have views other than their own aired on their shows. So yes, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be able to spew his Bush cheerleading propaganda 24/7 without having another person give their counterpoint with equal time. WOW, THE HORROR OF HINDERING PROPAGANDA!!!!
Source(s):
Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, and Air America (to counter right-wing propaganda), wouldn't EXIST if Reagan didn't get rid of the Fairness Doctrine in the late 1980s. It's time to bring fairness back and get rid of one-sided political programs of any kind. After all, we did pretty well with it since 1949.
2007-06-27 07:47:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The Fairness Doctrine is yet another attempt by the elite liberal minority to impose "their" values and views on an American populace that doesn't want to hear it. The left has tried to break into talk radio with "Air America" and it is nearly bankrupt. Why you ask if there are SOOOO many liberals in this country? The answer is quite simple. People on the whole, ( yes even those whiny liberals ) soon tire of hearing about all the problems in the world being caused by the United States, and with no solutions ever offered. Why should we listen to somebody spewing hate and discontent on the radio about our country? Hell, we get enough of that from the evening news on CBS, ABC, and NBC. Instead people listen to the "right" wing radio stations to get the OTHER side of the story. Usually the side the left would just as soon you not hear at all. You see it bothers the liberal elite when there is competition because time and time again their position is found to be untenable in the face of a logical argument where the other side has a chance to speak and be heard without interruption. THAT is why the Democrats are pushing this crap thru Congress.
2007-06-27 14:57:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They can't stand criticism. Even that teport issued by the Hillary front group is complaining about too much talk they don't like, not creating more viewpoints.
Anyone who says that this rule will create diversity or allow all viewpoints to be heard is either a liar or hopelessly naive.
What it will do is hound programmers with requests for equal time for this and that until they DROP the format to avoid the hassle.
And no one is applying it to the networks, which CLAIM they are just news. Who is to decide what is news and what is commentary? Everyone has a slant; talk radio is just honest about it.
Why have this at all? THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REGULATE THE POLITICAL CONTENT OF BROADCASTS. Period.
Public licenses? So what? The interstate highway is government property, so does that mean the government can tell people that if they have a Bush bumper sticker they have to have a Hillary one too?
The doctrine was originally used in the 1920s, when a town would be lucky to have ONE radio station. Now we have hundreds of choices.
If you want to bring back the doctrine at all, then do it in the same spirit: designate ONE channel in each market to apply the rules to, if it's done at all. Public access cable, and radio. Oh wait, we have NPR, already paid for by taxes. MY taxes, and yours. So, let the wackos go there and rant. Let the market deal with all the other stations.
The fact that anyone in government is even talking about this shows just how far we've sunk.
2007-06-27 14:55:07 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The point of the Fairness Doctrine is not to place the liberal's view on talk radio. The point is to abolish talk radio. The liberal "Airhead America" went bankrupt because there's no market for liberal talk radio. Once the liberal view point is placed on Rush's show, Hannity's show, etc, these shows will go bankrupt as well.
Trent Lott says that it's time we do something about talk radio.
I say it's time we do something about Trent Lott.
2007-06-27 15:57:20 · answer #4 · answered by Thomas W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech is and should be universal. I heard the headline on "Fox" about limiting talk radio. I personally limit talk radio with the on/off switch.
If the Fairness Doctrine's intent is to have broadcasters put up different points of view, for a balanced (more educated) listener, what part of that is wrong? The far right talk shows will only show their side whether true/partially true/ or false and the far left talk shows will do the exact same thing. That sounds like it's dividing, instead of enlightening to me.
2007-06-27 14:43:58 · answer #5 · answered by words_smith_4u 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Liberals have done more for free speech than any other group. If there is not equal time on PBS why didn't bush do anytying about it for the last 6 years?
Mrs Edwards ASKED politely for anne coulter to stop saying that her husband was a ****** and that it wouldn't be a bad thing if he was killed by terrorists. That's different than surpressing her speech.
Answer: He hired someone to determine if there was bias and a study was done. But the guy who did the study didn't like the results so he hid them. Your tax dollars paid for this study but you will never know what it says. Who's being dishonest now?
2007-06-27 14:45:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
This is no new liberal tactic. They lobbied to have Rush Limbaugh taken off Armed Forces Radio Network a couple of years ago. It seems they don't like open debate and even less openly being exposed for all their anti-American rhetoric. In the AFRN scandal, it didn't matter to them that 83% of the armed forces wanted to listen to Rush, the libs just couldn't bear being exposed for their anti-military/anti-American stance. I mean, think about it. John Kerry all but insinuated that the troops were a bunch of uneducated idiots who couldn't make it in the work force and so wound up in the military and over in Iraq.
Anne Coulter is giving them a taste of their own bilge and they can't handle it. It was ok for liberterian Bill Maher to say what he did back in March without a single democrat voicing a single syllable of protest. But let a conservative Republican icon turn it around on them and OMG!! The sun's going to fall out of the sky. It's all classical, liberal hypocrisy. Period.
2007-06-27 14:52:35 · answer #7 · answered by RIFF 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Conservative Radio talk show hosts added together with right-wing preachers on the radio outnumber liberal talk hosts 9 to 1, and they're far more likely to ignore science, studies, and evidence, so they are the real brainwashers in this country. All the poor little children that grow up around such people as Rush Limbaugh, Fred Phelps, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell, etc.
2007-06-27 14:48:24 · answer #8 · answered by topink 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
They get so upset about conservative radio to, so does that mean they fear it. I think it might be that they know it strikes a cord in the public while the hate speech of liberal radio can't even get a dollar to exist and people don't listen even when it is on.
2007-06-27 14:51:25 · answer #9 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the "fairness" doctrine could not be further from fair, especially if it is only enacted on talk radio. What about television? What about print media including magazines and newspaper? What about the internet - blogging?? If it is in effect for one, it should be in effect for all.
My opinion is this - if you don't like it, turn it off. Everyone has the right to their own opinion.
2007-06-27 14:44:27 · answer #10 · answered by Leah 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋