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?
2007-07-16 09:36:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by jy9900 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It had a purpose 40~60 years ago when it was first instituted.
It is obsolete nowadays, given how much broader the access to information is.
But it doesn't take away any freedoms. It just requires FCC-regulated broadcast stations to give equal time to all sides of a debate. While that is a regulation, it's not a freedom being infringed. Subtly legal distinction.
2007-07-15 01:34:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you better get updated and stop listening to conservative talk radio or watching FOX News. The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987. It is no longer in effect and hasn't been for the past 20 years. And there is no current legislation written nor is there any planned attempting to bring it back.
2007-07-15 01:55:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by ndmagicman 7
·
0⤊
0⤋