a grassroots campaign has begun urging algore to run for president with 100K sigs. will the fairness doctrine

Question

democrats say anything about him getting 75 free hours of air time on nbc? as it is, the other side of the global warming controversy did not get their fair share of air to tell their side of the research. Shouldn’t fellow skeptics of man made global warming get their shot at 75 free hours to opine?

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2007/07/a_draft_al_gore_group_1.html

Answer 1

I love your question.
Obviously everyone on the left thinks they have some type of legal right to say what they want without question and everyone from the right side of the isle must give time for opposing opinion if they say anything at any time.
What amuses me most is how Al Gore and Michael Moore can make "documentaries" based on biased data and specious arguments and people will PAY GOOD MONEY to see their propaganda films!
They are just Marxists and so are those supporting them.
If the left wants a fairness doctrine, it must apply equally to all forms of media. Television , Movies, radio, music, books, magazines ... you name it!
If it isn't applied that way, the "Fairness Doctrine" would be biased and the doctrine itself would be a violation of the first amendment.
Just as obvious is the fact that such an impractical action can never happen, so FORGET the fairness doctrine. Just preface ALL "NEWS" programs with a disclaimer stating "The information contained in the following broadcast depicts the views of the editors and those presenting the data and, though usually based on actual events, may not accurately represent true or complete facts and may result in distortions of reality."

Answer 2

There is no fairness doctrine. There is no bill in front of Congress or the Senate to bring it back. This is a Republican scare campaign.
The "other side" of the Global warming situation should simply get some vaguely credible spokesperson (as opposed to unqualified ultra right wing bloggers) and see if they can get on TV. Not our problem - anyway I am sure they have had a lot more than 75 hours on Fox each week for the past 5 years.

Answer 3

It's amazing how right-wing trolls and their hosts love to pontificate, isn't it? Unfortunately for them, they only prove my points. One of them offers: "...MSNBC, CNN are losing their audience in greater numbers, while Fox, Hannity or Rush Limbaugh numbers are increasing. ..." Unfortunately, the argument is not only lacking in facts, but illustrates why the Fairness Doctrine is important. For instance, Fox "News" ranted on, as did Rush and Ken doll Sean, about WMDs in Iraq, as well as every other lie put forth by the Bush administration, reaching millions of listeners and viewers, while also slandering the U.N. weapons inspectors, who just happened to be right. If you add political Christian broadcasting to this toxic mix, you get a monopoly that is dangerous. Progressives didn't get on Armed Forces radio until late in 2005, but even then Ed Schultz was threatened with cancellation before he even debuted, because he criticized someone in the Bush administration. This isn't championing free speech. It is patently unfair practice. It also illustrates the tilted news our military is getting. That, too, is dangerous.

Right-wing radio offers propaganda, not facts, with the intent to play on the listeners emotions, without offering content that is based in reality. The ratings prove that FNC, Fox "News" channel is losing out in the ratings. In addition, the ignorance of conservatives about media and radio is further shown when they say the Fairness Doctrine is about "...demanding that the government implement further control or regulation over an entire industry, it might be simpler to look in the mirror, at the rating points & ad revenues & realize that the market for the “progressive” or liberal slant isn’t as popular or pervasive as you assume it to be. ... Again, they miss the point. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, as well as the leader in progressive talk, Randi Rhodes, are making it in the commercial market. They are not only popular, but growing. The issue is to allow more progressive hosts on local am/fm radio to see if we can also make it. Unless you've been in the battle for radio you don't know what it's like, with conservative corporations not even giving progressives a chance to get on air, or cancelling good hosts before they have the time to prove themselves. You have to give progressive hosts a chance to build an audience, which takes time. But conservatives do not want fairness, which can be seen through their trade policy, as well as their anti-union rhetoric, which has decimated the middle class, by selling out workers for outsourcing all in the name of profit. They want a one-way talking machine on radio, paid by and benefiting only their political partners in business, as well.
Right-wing is on the air and getting advertisers because they're the only game in town, except for a few progressive hosts like Schultz, Miller and Rhodes. The Fairness Doctrine will not keep a bad show on, but it will allow entry to good hosts who are now being shut out by conservative conglomerates
The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?