Liberals have been saying that the crazy wingnut conservatives have simply been making up stories that liberals are going to try bring back the "Fairness Doctrine," THIS VIDEO shows Feinstein saying SUNDAY morning that she is looking into bringing back the fairness doctrine...
This is wrong on so many levels. Should I even try and begin? You know, I could start a list, and it saddens me that it would have no effect on liberals. Something so wrong, so far from the beliefs of our founding fathers, that is is a flat out shame that there are a group of people who not only don't see a problem with this, but believe FINALLY, justice will be done...
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sen. Feinstein: ‘Looking At’ Revival of Fairness Doctrine
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Game,
Watch Jim, Jay, and the other liberals they call for help, weigh in on how they aren't trying to silence the right and that the Democrat party is not trying to censor talk radio through the "Fairness Doctrine".
Hey, if there were a fairness doctrine applied to all media, then your Sunday morning line up would change, 60 minutes, Dateline, and others would have a massive change in reporters and producers. A Mary Mapes would not be able to get a job.
Oh, I don't expect Jim to admin that his favorite site, Think Progress, is lobbying for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine". In that, Jim is a flat out liar.
Jay, you are spinning and spinning, but if you can not see that your side is definitely moving for Government censorship, you need to seek out a competant mental health professional.
Like Democrats not wanting to raise taxes, now that the election is over, things like bringing back the (Un)Fairness Doctrine and other "Stalinist" progressive initiatives are not merely being whispered about in hiding by Democrats, but are coming out in a full throated roar.
Well, I guess it comes down to this. Do you think the media has an obligation to say things that are true? If you do believe that, do you believe there's a justification for a regulatory structure that would ensure that?
I don't know that I believe the second, but I believe the first. I don't see the "fairness doctrine" really going anywhere. Shaming our journalists into actually doing their jobs has usually worked before.
Chet,
Nice sentiment, but it doesn't work. Just look at the major papers in the state. How many times do they get things wrong and get called on it only to sweep it all under the carpet?
And if you believe the CAP report, here is the definitive rebuttal:
http://newsbusters.org/node/13676
Again, Jim, will be calling his liberal mentors looking for another lie to tell us about this subject. Jim you didn't look so good after I busted you on the "Think Progress" piece, did you?
Chet, I wouldn't hang around Jim if I were you and if you cared about your credibility and reputatation.
What's scary is that Trent Lott seems to agree with her.
Trent Lott has sold his soul I fear. Senate Bill 2 had a provision for interfering with organizations that chose to inform the public of what politicians were up to, explaining the bills they were considering, and the ramifications of them. I believe this was shot down, as it should be.
The great fear of these politicians is that the people are finding out just what is going on. People like Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham and others, are actually reading these bills and seeing how what's in print is not necessarily matching what's being said. And even if the intentions are pure (gag), those on talk radio shows, the blogosphere, and other new news sources, are thinking beyond the emotion of the bills to objectively consider the ramifications. This can make the politicians look stupid, corrupt, hypocritical and hot in the feet from their being held to the fire.
These politicians have every opportunity to get their messages out, but all too often, when a Laur Ingraham calls on them for an interview, they run away.
The new media is the regulation that works in that they demand an accounting from the politicians, and they do so on our behalf. The radio people I listen to, and the columnists I read, all prefer a good idea no matter which side of the aisle it comes. Feinstein, Lott, and others like them, simply want what they want and damn the citizenry.
Nice sentiment, but it doesn't work.
So then you support the basic idea of a fairness doctrine; you just have a difference of opinion about what constitutes "fair"?
Otherwise I'm just not sure what you're saying doesn't work. Did you read the part just now where I told you I was against the "Fairness doctrine?" Or are you just grappling with a strawliberal?
Just look at the major papers in the state.
Whose state? I live in Nebraska. I can hardly respond to comments about your newspapers.
Chet, I wouldn't hang around Jim if I were you and if you cared about your credibility and reputatation.
I don't hang around with Jim. I don't know what you think you're talking about. I've never met Jim, never spoken to him; I wasn't invited here by him and we're not co-ordinating our posts via email or something.
Exactly what "hanging around" are you talking about?
Chet,
Hanging around with Jim as in agreeing with his idiocy without checking it out beyond a trip to Media Matters.
I don't believe in Government Censorship. Being forced to be fair is a nice sentiment that just doesn't work. Again, Liberals are not looking for fair, they are looking to silence the opposition.
As far as Nebraska papers, I lived in Omaha and am quite familiar with the biases of the Omaha "Weird Harold".
If there was a Fairness enforced, where are the Conservative shows on the networks and on PBS and NPR?? Why are so-called community interest shows like Meet the Press so stacked with Liberals who are allowed to talk over and interrupt Conservatives?
Be a little honest here, Chet.
Hey, if there were a fairness doctrine applied to all media, then your Sunday morning line up would change [. . .] Why are so-called community interest shows like Meet the Press so stacked with Liberals who are allowed to talk over and interrupt Conservatives?
LOL! ROFLMAO! Whoo-hooo-hoo, you're funny, pcd. A veritable Howie Mandel!
Hanging around with Jim as in agreeing with his idiocy without checking it out beyond a trip to Media Matters.
Where, exactly, did I agree with him? He hasn't even said anything in this thread.
What the hell are you talking about, PCD?
I don't believe in Government Censorship. Being forced to be fair is a nice sentiment that just doesn't work.
I agree. So what were you trying to say, before? Are you even paying attention here, or are you assuming that because you've identified me as "liberal" that I automatically support everything Diane Feinstein idly suggests?
I think the Fairness doctrine is a bad idea. I don't know how to be more clear about that.
If there was a Fairness enforced, where are the Conservative shows on the networks and on PBS and NPR??
If you watched or listened to either of those networks, you'd know they're already there.
Why are so-called community interest shows like Meet the Press so stacked with Liberals who are allowed to talk over and interrupt Conservatives?
Meet the Press has Democrats on about one-third as many times as Republicans, even now with Democratic majorities in Congress; so I don't know what you're talking about with "stacked with liberals." That's just not true on Meet the Press, or Hardball, or any other mainstream commentary show except Keith Olbermann's show, which is an openly liberal commentary show.
Be a little honest here, Chet.
I've been nothing but. Let me assure you, there's absolutely nothing dishonest about my complete confusion as to what the hell you think you're talking about. What, exactly, do you think I'm taking Jim's position on in this thread?
Chet, meet pcd. This is all you'll get out of him. Let it go.
Chet, meet pcd. This is all you'll get out of him.
Duly noted.
Hey, liberals said no Democrat would ever bring up or introduce the fairness doctrine, and you are flat out and clearly wrong...
You say that the liberal media does not exist, I try and prove that wrong all the time...
And to clear one more thing up, I actually do take offense to being called a right wing crazy when I simply say what I think...I don't take talking points and just repeat them...I don't always agree with conservatives and when I don't I say so...thats all I have to say about that...
Got to call you on that, game. You and others here call me equivalent names every day, so your righteous indignation has no credibility.
Hey, liberals said no Democrat would ever bring up or introduce the fairness doctrine, and you are flat out and clearly wrong...
Well, certainly whoever said that was wrong.
I never said that, though. Liberals don't all speak with one monolithic voice. Try not to pretend that we all look the same to you, ok? Oddly enough there's actually a lot of disagreement among us on some issues. Liberalism isn't the echo-chamber you're probably used to over there on the right.
You say that the liberal media does not exist, I try and prove that wrong all the time...
Well, good luck with that.
I don't take talking points and just repeat them..
Aren't you forgetting your Ann Coulter cut-n-paste a few posts down?
liberals said no Democrat would ever bring up or introduce the fairness doctrine
I didn't say that. Don't call me wrong, because I didn't say that.
It would be what we in the business to call "a lie."
Gotta love Chet!! (You too, Jay.)
"Oddly enough there's actually a lot of disagreement among us on some issues."
Any examples? Just curious.
the only one is how fast we can get out of Iraq...
Marshall
Depends on how you define "lot". ie -
How fast should we abondon Iraq?
How many illegals does it take to make one legal? (yah, you see, when Repubs take up a Lib idea, it's still a disaster in our eyes!)
How much socialism is good socialism? (read: how much can we get away with?)
Why should I wipe my ass, when the gov't can do it for me?
OK, I got a little carried away - just a little.
Now, back to topic - the fairness doctrine.
Funny, how such a hot topic is not really supported by the current lefties on this post, just supported by the people they support.
Jay,
I'm so happy Media Matters has selectively, statistically proved your point! Of course we could submit like stats from the Media Resarch Org to show just the opposite. What's a poor man to think?! I guess we'll have to go by our perceptions, no matter how biased. Let's see, FOX and successful talk radio on the one side and, well, all the rest on the other.
Seems how there's no such thing as real news anymore, it's all editorial comment disguised as news, I'm guessing maybe you can relate to the paranoia the fairness doctrine may cause the more right thinking among us.
Any examples? Just curious.
Well, what we're talking about, for one.
I'm so happy Media Matters has selectively, statistically proved your point! Of course we could submit like stats from the Media Resarch Org to show just the opposite.
Selectively? They looked at every episode of a Sunday morning show aired between 1997 and 2006.
If a different group has a different set of data, let's see it, please.
Chet and Jay,
I'm throwing the bullshit flag on the both of you. Both of you are crazy if you think PBS and NPR is fair and shows both sides. Just to show you part of the bias watch this video:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/busted-pbs-official-tell-producer-not. html
Jim said that liberals and Democrats were not pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I busted him on another thread. You Libs need those links shoved in your faces again? I like the post from Think Progress, one of Jim's favorite cut and paste sites. It made Jim such a liar as they are pushing the Fairness Doctrine in their efforts to silence the right.
Jay if you and Chet think NPR and PBS have Conservative shows, list them. We'll laugh at you when you point out how biased and skewed left you are.
Flaky Feinstein IS as entertaining as a good cartoon.Too bad she is where she is with the clout hanging
over competent ideas.Some of these defenders of this tripe here GAME,
HAS put me in a great mood this morning,as,the jumbled one seems to have more support to help us enjoy the views presented.
Jay
Until recently (the last few years) I can’t remember seeing a Sunday morning show that I wouldn’t consider skewed to the left. Of course anecdotes does not a stat make, so I guess I’ll have to take their word for it.
But I hope you didn’t fall for Media Matters ruse.
First of all, MM takes one type of “news” show, during one time slot, and this supposedly proves there’s no lefty bias in news?
Secondly, the Sunday morning shows are opinion-editorial shows. The problem of pro lefty bias is with the so-called hard news shows, 60 minutes, 20-20, the CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC Nightly “News”, etc.
I know there are dimwits who don’t know the difference between O’Reilly’s show and 60 Minutes, and insist on comparing apples to oranges when discussing media bias, and embrace such comparisons to “prove” their side isn’t getting favorable treatment in the press, but it’s time you stop helping to enable the dupes.
pcd--PBS has hired long-time Republican pollster and hack Frank Luntz to provide the commentary after the Democratic debate on June 28, 2007,. Just Luntz. By himself. To "analyze" a debate among Democrats.
So liberal.
blamin--pcd specifically called the Sunday morning shows liberal. I refuted it.
Jay,
Now I'm going to call you a bald faced liar. You refuted nothing. One Pollster is not balance to the entire PBS schedule. Also, PBS is not part of the Sunday shows.
You really are a hack, Jay. You offer one name and declare no liberal bias. You should be kicked hard in your rear. You are so dishonest.
Again, list the Conservative shows on PBS and NPR, then you can also show a show on Sunday that has any kind of real balance. 4 libs to 1 conservative is not balance.
PCD - try to keep in mind what you originally asked.
If there was a Fairness enforced, where are the Conservative shows on the networks and on PBS and NPR??
What you're doing is moving the goalposts. We answered your original question. Don't pretend like we failed to answer a question you didn't originally ask, ok? It's dishonest, and we all know how much you hate dishonesty.
Watch Jim, Jay, and the other liberals they call for help, weigh in on how they aren't trying to silence the right and that the Democrat party is not trying to censor talk radio through the "Fairness Doctrine".
Conservatives have been whiny little titty babies about fairness in the media, universities, etc. for a long time now. So if you assume that when conservatives were wailing and gnashing their teeth about liberal bias that they weren't actually trying to censor liberals, why should you assume that a liberal wants to censor conservatives? I mean, unless you have some irrational belief that liberals are fundamentally bad people.
The fairness doctrine sounds stupid. Personally, I'd be happy if journalists could shut up about Paris Hilton for long enough to actually report the news.
list the Conservative shows on PBS and NPR,
Name the liberal ones.
"whiney little tittie babies"? What the fuck is that?
Of course conservatives haven't been trying to censor liberals. That's evident by listening to their talk shows or reading their blogs and articles. Generally speaking, they prefer to simply challenge assertions and support their opinions. They openly welcome debate with the looney left as is evident right here at this blog.
You don't, and I'm speaking generally again, see as much from the left. They shout over you, they throw pies, they dismiss you and ban you from their sites and blogs, they introduce hate speech legislation, they form McCain/Feingold bills and seek to do away with lobbyists. I've seen all of this stuff with little or no conservative equivalent. It's simply the way it is. Generally speaking.
Nat Hentoff has a nice column today about the Fairness Doctrine as an assault on free speech by the left.
Again, Jay made the assertion that PBS and NPR aren't biased to the left and that rhere were Conservative shows. I said to name them and he can't.
Chet is the whining crybaby. He can't prove there isn't a liberal bias to the media and he also can't name Conservative shows on PBS and NPR.
What a pair of propagandists who got chaught in the act.
Jay and Chet, you are just like Jim. When cornered and challenged to specifically name things, neither of you are honest and lie your way to get away.
Generally speaking, they prefer to simply challenge assertions and support their opinions.
Funny, I've been waiting for conservatives to support their opinions here at this blog for three days now. But not a single person has been able to level a factually-based argument. The only response anyone appears to have - including you, marshall - is "you're a stupid liberal."
Color me not impressed. It's the same intellectual bankruptcy I came to see in conservativism in 2000 and 2001, and it's the same bankruptcy I've encountered at every conservative blog that allows comments (which aren't many.)
he also can't name Conservative shows on PBS and NPR.
Let's start with my local PBS station for non-liberal programming:
Charlie Rose (sitting on the board of directors for Citadel Radio, he's clearly no liberal)
We've previously noted that Frank Luntz is going to be providing election coverage
The Maclaughlin Group ran for years; since John MacLaughlin is conservative, that makes the panel majority conservative.
Lewis Ruckheiser's show ran for years (before he died.)
And, of course, liberals were up in arms about PBS's plan to run a documentary" on the tradition of American secular government that relied on falsified information and revisionist history from an ultra-right-wing organization dedicated to destroying the seperation of church and state.
That's not even a complete list. That's what I could find in ten minutes standing here in the computer lab.
Once again, PCD, we see that you're completely wrong - and that personal insults are all you have to offer.
I am in total agreement with Chet, Jay and realism. However, since the wing nuts can't make their case, I'll give them a hint--NOW and Bill Moyer's Journal. [ssshhhhhh] Don't tell anyone.
Jim,
I'll give you a hint. Chet is full of crap, and so are you. Chet can't even demostrate by mischaracterizing Charlie Rose as a Conservative, and by implication saying the McLaughlin did not have more liberals on his show than conservatives, that even 5% of PBS' broadcast schedule was Conservative Programming.
He can't even identify one show on NPR as being Conservative.
If you libs were honest, you'd admit that you can't, but no you can't.
He can't even identify one show on NPR as being Conservative.
I actually identified several, but don't let that stop you from being a liar, as usual.
Post a Comment