Dems ONLY!!!?

Question

Hey, this fairness in the media act....OR WHATEVER it's called today, it inhibits free speech, forces the media to preach what the government dictates. We know that DUH right....

Ok, if it is so inhibitive to one of our fundamental rights, and you defend the rights of free speech so hard, DO YOU SUPPORT IT?

And yes, I do want to hear what all the dems to speak up because I want to know where you stand.

Spare me the banter, let's keep the educated ones answering.

NO I dont hate anyone. I just dis agree with most! hehehe

But seriously, lets try to sway eachother a little and put best of interest first

Look, I'm not asking this for you to try and contort the constitution! Lets keep our heads clear.

Answer 1

The Fairness Doctrine has a number of poor restrictions in it.

What if people aren't interested in the Democratic party? Will they still be forced to broadcast our side (my party = democratic)? How about the Green party? Peace and Love party? Etc.

And if you get fined, it pays for NPR, which most of America considers biased to my party (Democratic). As an old-style Democrat, I cannot support this measure.

If it were opened to all forms of media, the proportions made to be restricted to the percentage of the political spectrum as determined by independent government polls for all parties, with no provision for giving money to one side or the other,...

...I still wouldn't support it.

I'm also a capitalist, not a socialist.

Answer 2

Frankly I'm on the fence about the "Fairness Doctrine" because I agree with the concept but not the law. I partly agree with what coragryph said, but I don't think the concept is entirely obsolete. Although there is much more availability to alternative news sources via the Internet, the mainstream mass media has been bought up by a relatively few large conglomerates. Does that mean "fair and balanced" or maybe just homogenized? Before answering off the cuff, really think about mainstream mass media coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq I wonder if it's even accurate anymore to say that the public airwaves are really in the public domain. That's what I feel is the real issue.

BTW... I'm a Libertarian, so I guess that makes me a part-time Democrat. You can take my opinion then with 1/2 grain of salt. :-)

Answer 3

The fairness doctrine is a terrible idea from the sorts of people who can not be successful relying on their own devices. Instead, these people must mandate their ideas to gain listenership. I used to tune into Air America a couple years ago and understood quite clearly why it tanked. Liberal whining and political correct holier-than-thouness. It was terrible and it failed based on the lack of quality of discussion and because the big bad conservative radio hosts are far more entertaining. Its like a hag walking into a beauty pageant and demanding they change the rules to give high marks for cellulite instead of shaping up and striving for something. Step up and do it on your own merit and successes and stop indoctrinating people to believe the only way they can succeed is to get a lawyer from the ACLU! You know what else? I resent the Dems telling me I am too stupid to come to my own conclusions. That without their fairness doctrine leveling the playing field, I am just being brainwashed. They will always be the party that thinks we are all apes. The dems-no, the politicians-are so far gone, it's unbelievable!!

Answer 4

I think the fairness doctrine's goal IS actually to make things more balanced in the media but I also think that the government should not be controling that...people can say whatever they want in the media but I think the fairness doctrine is trying to control many political lies that are getting out. Even if they are lies it is not the place of the government to make everyone tell the truth.

Answer 5

Have you actually read the bill? Because your description of the Fairness Doctrine is not even close to correct.

That being said, it is an obsolete provision. When it was first enacted 40~60 years ago, there was very limited options for broadcast media, not internet, and limited print news. So, the concept of one media source being required to give equal air time to all provisions made sense.

Nowadays, with unlimited internet, cheap webcasting, anyone able to blog, cable and satellite -- there is no risk of one source monopolizing the airwaves, and no need for force any one source to provide equal time.

But if you oppose it, you should at least read it, so you can make a coherent argument supporting your position.

Answer 6

Nah I think the bill is kinda silly myself. It won't pass though. I don't take it serious, I just think it's the Dems way of bugging the crap out of the Reps to get back at them for all of the stupid things the Reps did to them pre-2006.

I don't support it really. Not in its current version, anyway. There's no reason for them to mess with talk radio. It's not a good medium anyway.

Answer 7

It's amazing how stupid the Liberal goons really are.

FACT #1, TV is controlled by liberal media DUH...RIGHT?

FACT#2, they will lose more from CNN being censored by their own act!!!

FACT#3, the talk radio is tiny compared to CNN

Forget those morons! Let them do it.

End factor----the dems will have their own Ross Perot pulling the rug out from under them!!!

Answer 8

Wheee! If you're asking do I support free speech the answer is Yes.

Answer 9

Of course! That "liberal media" needs to be balanced out, right? Interestingly enough, the biggest supporters of this in congress happen to be on the Republican side. They desire to have stricter controls on talk-radio, for example, because of all the anti-immigration speech that proves harmful to their corporate interests.

Answer 10

It's extremely doubt full you'll get a straight answer from a Dem, they aren't capable of such a thing .