Why do right-wingers keep going on and on and on and on.....?

Question

About the Fairness Doctrine being something created by liberals to kill conservative speech, when in reality....

-The thing was created in 1949, as a way to kill any and all speech considered pro-communist

-The whole idea for it was sparked after a liberal reporter verbally attacked a conservative politician

- and it was a liberal justice,William Joseph Brennan, Jr., who dealt the final blow to the Fairness Doctrine when the Supreme Court decided it limited Freedom of Speech, by being the voted that tilted the decision in opposition of the fairness doctrine.

The Red Lion Broadcasting Company is licensed to operate a Pennsylvania radio station, WGCB. On November 27, 1964, WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of a "Christian Crusade" series. A book by Fred J. Cook entitled "Goldwater - Extremist on the Right" was discussed by Hargis, who said that Cook had been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; that Cook had then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; that he had defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency; and that he had now written a "book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater." 2 When Cook heard of the broadcast he [395 U.S. 367, 372] concluded that he had been personally attacked and demanded free reply time, which the station refused. After an exchange of letters among Cook, Red Lion, and the FCC, the FCC declared that the Hargis broadcast constituted a personal attack on Cook; that Red Lion had failed to meet

its obligation under the fairness doctrine as expressed in Times-Mirror Broadcasting Co., 24 P & F Radio Reg. 404 (1962), to send a tape, transcript, or summary of the broadcast to Cook and offer him reply time; and that the station must provide reply time whether or not Cook would pay for it. On review in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 3 the [395 U.S. 367, 373] FCC's position was upheld as constitutional and otherwise proper. 127 U.S. App. D.C. 129, 381 F.2d 908 (1967).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=395&page=367

lets all try to read the whole question please.

maxx P, if you can't figure out how to read a question, and answer it, don't bother. I didn't even imply anything you mentioned.

bekki1706, it is obvious, that you have no clue what the fainess doctrine was, other than what your radio tells you it is.
try reading the link.

Boomer Wisdom, thank you for being the first person that can answer without ranting.

specal k, I think you are referring to the radio act, that was very similar, that emerged in 1927 to established the FRC which eventually became the FCC in 1934, and had many of the same rules that were eventually defined and expanded under the fairness doctrine.

but still a good answer specal k.....silly politicians!

Answer 1

read my question from last week the fairness doctrin is older than 1949
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah.nQtX0WAGbFdGmglc0GAPty6IX?qid=20070813203242AANzu7k
it is a scare tactic like abortion and gay marrage
it is ment to get people worried

Answer 2

Cute little Karl Rovian names to mistakenly and deliberately vindictively describe Liberals are about as silly as the Fairness Doctrine.

Back when McCarthy ruled and held his investigations into Communist activity in the U.S., the country went through a crisis that is similar to the Rightwing movement of today. Anyone whom they decided had attended a communist meeting, knew a communist, talked about communism, etc., was a traitor, or as close to a traitor as one can become without being hung.

The same hysterical philosophy is used by the NeoCons to vilify the word Liberal, in a purely political move that was turned into a national policy and has led us into near-bankruptcy and perpetual war.

The Fairness Doctrine was composed from fear...the same fear peddled today, except that then it was the Red Scare and now it is Fear of Terror. During the Red Scare, reputations were ruined, jobs were lost, families were broken up and the country was radically afraid of Russians, to a point where bomb shelters, now used as storage bins and tornado shelters, were erected in backyards, lest the Russians unleash a horrible atomic holocaust on our country.

When Edward R. Murrow led the campaign to release our country from its meaningless witchhunt, laws like the Fairness Doctrine became like the flotsam and jetsam of a national hysteria, just as the NeoCon vilification of liberal reasoning has lost its glow. Judge Brennan's opinion was a breath of fresh air.

When we lose freedom of speech, we have lost our country. When we refuse to allow a Dixie Chick to voice her political beliefs and her antipathy toward a president, we have tossed our Democracy out the window.

Answer 3

They keep going on and on because they believe that ANYTHING not of their regurgitated talking points is communist.

Of course to anyone rational and open to debate it's another or several other points of view or ways to look at issues.......but to the right it's communist propaganda.

Thankfully more people who reside somewhere in the middle of the two major political parties are still willing to remain open to debate for the good of the country.

As soon as we get another Democrat controlled government with a Democrat White House things might calm down again.

I hope.

Answer 4

Thank you for the ancient history lesson but the Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than an attempt to silence talk radio.

Regardless of why the Fairness Doctrine was originally created it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. You cannot justify a wrong by stated that we used to do it. If that is the rule are you ready to reintroduce slavery, segregation and the forced removal of people (actually the libs call that imminent domain now).

Answer 5

They go on, and on , and on because you have to repeat a lie many times to get people to belive it. Most people are so UNINFORMED that what they belive is the things they hear the most. If the last thing they hear was a lie, chances are they belive they KNOW the truth.

Answer 6

Because they are afraid that the poisonous rhetoric that they have used to destroy reasonable political discussion in this country would have to stand up to real response.

If people start discussing politics in a reasonable way instead of repeating "talking point" slogans, their side will lose.

Answer 7

Righties:
1) Think that by distorting facts they somehow come out ahead.How? Defies rational explanation.
2) Think by screeching or name calling they can scare others into agreeing with them - which somehow makes their distortions true. How? Very primal but not very realistic in the long run
3) It's Clinton's fault - which to them somehow ends the topic and leaves them the victor. How? Beyond me................................

Answer 8

They have nothing better to say and they are trying to divert the attention of this Sorry aDministration that stinks and they go on and on and on and on to something that can not ever happpen !!
LOSERS !!

Answer 9

i'm not going on and on about it....and i don't believe it was a conservative who brought it up AGAIN....

something about talk radio being too conservative without showing the liberal side?

the thing is...Air America tried....no one listened...no one wanted to hear what AA had to say....

now you want it forced down our throats? what? television..the three network stations aren't enough? hollywood isn't enough? you want the radio too? *lol* ... and this is fair.....how?

hey...if a liberal talk show on radio gets the ratings....good on them! go for it then....

but don't think that the fairness doctrine will win you any more listeners....not until you have something middle america finds attractive at any rate...

Answer 10

I think maybe because the "doctrine" is not in keeping with freedom of speech. It allows the Government to determine political content, and, as I remember, my recent ancestors fought, killed, and were killed, for this right.

The US Government has NO RIGHT to determine political content, in any form, or via any medium. Never has.

Anybody who disagrees is welcome to watch dog-training shows on the BBC or dig up old Pravdas and read to their heart's content.