Are Cons afraid of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine because they can't compete w/coherent speakers and logic?

Question

Why are they afraid of giving equal time to non-Bush/neocon propaganda? Why do they want to continue to silence and censor others in favor of corporately sponsored, mind-numbing propaganda? And don't even mention Air America--the corporations are LOATHE to sponsor views that don't spout corporate welfare and neocon propaganda. That's why they get little advertising (so few people know they exist) and the reception is horrible (so you can't even find it by accident). Shouldn't broadcasters be subject to rules like in the past so that they can't abuse their use of our public airwaves to spout propaganda like in some dictatorial regime?

Randi Rhodes is the best--I'm glad you got to listen to her show!

Answer 1

The Fairness Doctrine was in effect between 1949 and 1986. I am old enough to remember most of these years. In that time, BOTH sides of an issue of public interest had to be told. There were no idiots ranting a bunch of B/S. It was just commentary from both sides.

The news was much more informative. People were not divided as they are now. No complaints of liberal/conservative bias. No name calling, no bigoted statements about liberals/conservatives all do this or all do that. What a bunch of crap we have now. Any body with half a brain would know better than to think all liberals or all conservatives are the same. These commentators just play on peoples emotions and try to validate their bias. I have to admit its good for a laugh but other than that, it stinks.

The Fairness Doctrine will never become law because it is government control of the media even though it would do wonders for our political system again.

Answer 2

i'm specific you're an clever guy or woman, able to self sustaining concept. Are you particularly that conscious of the main factors of the equity Doctrine to actual help its passage? Do you comprehend our Constitional perfect to unfastened speech?? enable's take radio as an occasion. Radio stations make money by means of advertising. If a tutor does not generate sufficient advert sales, it is going off the air. If it makes lots, it gets best spots. that's a aggressive enterprise, even though it is likewise the marketplace at artwork as meant. The equity Doctrine does not suppress conservative speach lots as make it madatory that liberal perspectives be aired besides. Radio stations could unfastened money in the event that they have been forced to air something that the government mandated and not something that is aggressive. And the stations does not have the alternative of having the tutor off the air, as with Air united statesa.. The equity Doctrine is only yet another mechanism by means of which the government could shrink to rubble a superbly sturdy concern and injury enterprise. however the impetus has each and every thing to do with conservative concept and techniques, the outcomes does not.

Answer 3

Air America has tried and failed on many prominent radio stations.

The FACT is that when liberals try to discuss their side of the issues it becomes the same old catch phrases and emotion driven nonsense there is no way to logically breakdown an issue to discuss it piece by piece and still remain confident in the liberal view. When it is tried it fails and people change the station.

Simple as that the station loses listeners and their air time becomes less valuable, less people listening to the station less people hearing the advertising. The less people hearing the Ads the less the advertiser is willing to pay the radio station to air its commercials. The Radio Station losses money and must decide ether to change format from talk to music or go out of business.

If the fairness doctrine is put back in place the government will be deciding what can and can not be put on the air re guarding political speech.
It is a direct violation of the American Right to Free Speech.
This is the same type of law that is in place in Cuba North Korea, Venezuela and China.

The Fairness Doctrine is taken straight from the Communist and dictators that don't want there people to hear anything but what is approved by the corrupt governments that they rule over.

I love the fact that there are so many thumbs down votes on this question but no one can answer to the oppeset of what we have said. It just proves the point. Libs disagree but have no logical answer to post.

Answer 4

It's not a matter of being afraid -- its a bad law that does nothing but impose govt regulation on free speech.

It had a point 40~60 years ago, when the only options were a few broadcast stations -- so there was a real danger of one source controlling all sides of a debate.

Nowadays, it's just a blatant intrusion on the rights of a media outlet to decide what it wants to cover -- and arguably is an underhanded attempt to cause these companies to go out of business. Which is anything but fair.

Answer 5

The Fairness Doctrine simply is Stalinism.

Leftists LOVE coercion to silence those who oppose their agenda. They already control 90% of the print media and 90% of the TV media, and 100% of the public schools and universities. They prove they abhore the 1st Amendment with this totalitarian control mind set.

Stalinists made it illegal in the Soveit Union for anyone other than a Party official to own a copy machine. Why? Copy machines enabled diseminating information, and they did not want any competition.

Talk Radio is a way to get out competing messages other that the thought control praticed by the left in all the other media. Now, they are trying to shut down this competition.

While you're at it, why not just outlaw the entire Bill of Rights. Stalinists certainly don't need those outdated restrictions on their power!

Answer 6

How about the fact that the fairness doctrine is above all censorship. Instead of letting us the people determine whats on the airwaves and tv the fairness doctrine makes the government determine what is put on the air. The fact is that liberal radio is crap and nobody listens to it. Corporations are LOATHE to sponsor it because no one listens to it. Remember the XFL and how little sponsorship that got? Same boat. I find it amusing that you want the GOVERNMENT to choose whats on the airwaves to stop the spread of propaganda.

Answer 7

Considering that cons tend to speak more logically and coherently than dems, I'd guess they do not fear the "Fairness Doctrine" for that reason.
They are not afraid of giving "equal time" to dems. If you really take time to study the "Fairness Doctrine" (which I'm guessing you haven't), you would see that it's all about trying to force broadcasters to sponsor left wing radio. Liberal radio talk shows have all failed in the past - not because they are hard to find or get horrible reception, but because they don't bring in enough money by attracting enough listeners to cause corporations to buy advertising during said shows. And they don't bring in enough listeners because they are hosted by hate-mongering, illogical, emotionally immature people.

Answer 8

Look at who owns the news. Reporters are liberal (generally),editors are conservatve (generally),but owners are conservative (nearly always). The Fairness Doctrine assaults the basic capitalist premise that "he who has the gold, rules". That is why the Cons are afraid of the fairness doctrine. Equal play of ideas means Liberalism wins, almost every time.

Answer 9

Try and get something listeners might actually want. I will bring up Air America. I've heard Randi Rhodes pull juvenile crap like using gunshot sound effects whenever she brought up Bush's name. And come on,CBS,CNN they lean left. Keith Olbermann is a joke too.

Answer 10

Nobody listens to the libs so they want to shut down the venues by which the conservatives are heard. The Conservatives which make much more sense have a lot of sponsors and listeners. That scares and irritates the libs because their lies get exposed. They do not like that.
BTW, don't change your nickname, it describes you to a Tee.