GREAT speech by Bush about this topic:
“This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.’ The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.”
” I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”
“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.”
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Dems trying to enact more socialism: The Fairness Doctrine
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
”Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”
And here you have the crux of the matter.
Do we want some appointed bureaucrat deciding what speech falls within the purview of their so-called jurisdiction?
The resurgence of this debate just goes to show the desperateness of those that can’t fathom can’t stand, can’t abide the fact that some have a legitimate problem with the typical mindset of the beltway pundits.
“The Fairness Act”, hell if the status quo cared about fairness, they’d actually report Rush’s comments within context.
this is already a done deal, radio is on the ropes as it is
deconsolidation is next
Strong words anonmouse
“Radio on the ropes” oh that’s funny!
You want to see a revolution? Just try it!
"deconsolidation is next"
Too bad this is inapplicable to CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSDNC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, Daily Kos, DemocraticUnderground.com, and other liberal sources of news.
Herbert Marcuse, one of the fathers of Cultural Marxism (called "political correctness" by the proles) once remarked that liberating tolerance is "intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left."
Sorry guys, three hardleft socialists plus David Brooks isn't what I would call balance.
Liberals *hate* dissent.
the minute any type of Fairness Doctrine is enacted, I'm going to court and shut up every liberal host in the country, including news anchors!
all things being equal i would oppose the fairness doctrine. the problem is, all things are not equal because of media consolidation.
i don't think i would force a particular station or network to provide equal time as long as the public has reasonably equal access to different viewpoints within the same media. like cable systems should be required to provide pbs and link tv as part of the basic package. clear channel and serius should be required to carry channels with competing viewpoints. and big media should not be allowed to buy up or drive out competing media outlets.
otherwise, say whatever your audience wants to hear 24/7.
that sounds reasonable...but is that what the fairness doctrine is???
i don't think that is the fairness doctrine as it was in the past. that's ok. i think there is room for, dare i say it, a compromise such as what i have suggested. we're almost there - you said it sounds reasonable.
Here is the problem...
in an open market the stations that make money are on the air.
for example, in one city there might not be a ghetto rap station because no one wants to listen to it...
Well, say CC owns a bunch of stations in a city, and they have a liberal one...that one is losing their ass and they change it. I don't think it would be fair to MAKE them keep it on the air...
clear channel can't afford to lose money on one station? or sell it to someone willing to try to make a go of it with alternative programming?
you need to picture a world where hillary is president, al franken rules the radio waves and keith olberman is the biggest thing on cable news. wouldn't you like to make sure you can hear your viewpoint expressed in the media?
Post a Comment