Today on KXPTY106.12 you will not believe this story. I am here to tell you that a presidential candidate has been caught in a very nasty bit of business today. He has now been linked to the ‘militarians’ and has plans to invade the entire world. He will stop at nothing his name is… Hey, wait. Who are these guys in black coats and dark shades that just entered the studio? ... What do you mean I have to come with you? …Hey, let go of me…you can’t stop me from saying that, I have the source right here…wait, the Fairness what? …Give me back my microphone …Hey! Take these hand cuffs off me… Where are you taking me….No …Ah… wait… arrg…? (Door slam and a muffled gun shot is heard)
The Fairness Doctrine has returned, the first amendment that we all know, love, and use to its fullest has come under fire yet again. There is a petition to ban the Fairness Doctrine going around congress but no democrat has been willing to sign it. It seems to me that they have shown their true nature. In my opinion, they wish to control what we see and hear. They do not want the truth, or debate, they want only their truth to be heard or seen and to be taken as is, without thought.
Why are we letting people who want us to become a socialist government to run our democratic government? Why are we letting them pick and choose for us the rights that we can have? There are a few problems with The Fairness Doctrine. The first, what is fair? Can you tell me what’s fair without putting in your own bias? Next, how will they enforce the standards? Most likely with huge fines and maybe even jail time if you can not pay. Then, who will determine what can, and can not, be said? You, me? More then likely it will be the government, whom wishes to stay in power. On a side note, The Fairness Doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition as stated here. So believe what you want. The government has already shown that it can not be trusted with this kind of power and this is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to fend off. They have also shown that they want more control. It’ll be okay, it’s not like they will come after ProU. We do not provided detailed analysis of current daily events.
If you let the government trample your rights today, what will there be worth saving tomorrow? So far no Democrat has signed the petition to remove The Fairness Doctrine permanently, maybe we should ask why. I have that Information: “Some Democrats have said it makes little sense to ban something that doesn’t exist” as stated here.
Maybe some of you out here believe the democrats and assume that since the bill is not up for voting into law, then there is nothing to worry about. Well, just some last thoughts for you. First, if they tried to pass the doctrine at this time, President Bush would veto it in a heartbeat. Secondly, they have tried in the last year to bring back The Fairness Doctrine, including a Grassroots bill to control certain groups, and luckily they failed. Last little thought, not meaning to heap against Obama, but if he is elected this November do you think he would veto The Fairness Doctrine. The man who says (I apologize I am paraphrasing a little bit on comments said by Obama) ‘it is not fair for you to attack my wife’s statements’. ‘It is unfair that you are taking a few phrases out of 20 years of sermons’. ‘It is unfair of you to attack someone close me because of what he did when I was 8 years old’. I maybe wrong, he may veto this bill that could be used to STOP all this unfairness i.e. truth. I personally do not wish to leave this matter in his hands, or anyone else’s. Let’s call, write, or e-mail our congress people and let us get rid of this doctrine once and for all. I love my rights, how about
I can not stand it when the government tries to control us or anything for that matter. their role was never to control.
To find how to contact your people go here:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Nice call to action and that intro 'scene' was kind of a funny dramatization.
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
It is not fair. I think it is wrong. Also Fairness doctorine... look at what happens on the major broadcast networks. There are no one to counterpoint their point of view which is right wing extremist . Sometimes I agree with Anne Coulter and some times I think she is wrong about how she approaches things.
There are some pin heads out there who want this back.... because Obama is running that is the only reason. Read this editorial on this matter. It is eye opening
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/070708/edi_464645.shtml
Published Author and Poet
Teacher Education Student.
has actually said he wouldn't sign the fairness doctrine. Alot of Democratic senators are dead set against it. It was a law created in the Truman era out of good intentions, but which ultimately failed. Very few democrats are seriously considering bringing it back.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
Hello John,
During the campaign he said that he would not sigh the fairness doctrine. After he won he has stated that he would sign into law any policies that would insure that fairness is maintained over the air ways and that it is not only one sided.
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
can I see this in context, please?
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
I have found this http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-obama-fairness-doctrine/ I know it is not exactly what I stated to you earlier but I was resiting misinformed from a internet site that has no creditable source in my opinion they were not far off but they and I did mis speak. You can also go here (http://www.heritage.org/Research/regulation/BlogEntry.cfm?PrettyID=7668&...) and ask yourself if he is against it then why did he not sign “Broadcaster Freedom Act,” that would insure the fairness doctrine or anything similar never is imposed.
Now my orginal blog
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
"However, the new president-elect is unlikely to favor a return of the Fairness Doctrine, per se. In June 2008, Obama press secretary Michael Ortiz told Broadcasting & Cable that “Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.”
The problem, in my opinion, is people not knowing the difference between media reform and the Fairness Doctrine. Media reform -laws which regulate how many news sources a company may own, increased funding for public television and other measures which would improve the market place of ideas- is supported by many citizens left, right, and center. The Fairness Doctrine is supported by a very small handful of people, and serves as a boogeyman for rightwing pundits.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
Why should the public fund media? It's not like their is a shortage of choices or diversity of ideas. If it is really a "market place" of ideas then it is unfair to give one set of ideas a public subsidy while others have to actually compete by attracting an audience that in turn attracts advertisers.
Usually, if one looks around the world, publicly funded media amounts to little more than the government's propaganda arm. For example. the BBC used to be great but now it is decidely a very biased news source that slants everything towards a particular agenda and partisan point of view. What passes for government media in Canada is dispicable.
For a couple of years during the Bush '41 Administration my brother-in-law was the head of the the USIA (US Information Agency). Among several other things the USIA was responsible for the Voice of America which is our foreign propaganda arm. I used to tease him that he should rename his agency the Federal Information Bureau (FIB). I don't mind having a foreign propaganda media because propaganda is a powerful weapon but I have no interest in being taxed so that the government can spoon feed me half truths and lies.
It's not like their is a shortage of choices or diversity of ideas. If it is really a "market place" of ideas then it is unfair to give one set of ideas a public subsidy while others have to actually compete by attracting an audience that in turn attracts advertisers.
However, the market place has gone without regulation for too long. The same six or seven companies own a majority of media in this country. Media reform is needed to counter act this. There is in fact a "shortage of choices or diversity of ideas" on many networks. Most corporate media goes to the same select pundits to speak on every issue. With public broadcasting, a much wider viewpoint is offered.
Usually, if one looks around the world, publicly funded media amounts to little more than the government's propaganda arm. For example. the BBC used to be great but now it is decidely a very biased news source that slants everything towards a particular agenda and partisan point of view. What passes for government media in Canada is dispicable.
This has not been the case in America. From its inseption, Public Broadcasting has raised the ire of those in power. Nixon wanted to dismantle it. This spirit has continued untill today, with attempts to destroy public broadcasting still prevalent on the parts of many in the government. I must ask the question, if PBS is just another propaganda tool, how has it drawn so much hatred from politicians?
For a couple of years during the Bush '41 Administration my brother-in-law was the head of the the USIA (US Information Agency). Among several other things the USIA was responsible for the Voice of America which is our foreign propaganda arm. I used to tease him that he should rename his agency the Federal Information Bureau (FIB). I don't mind having a foreign propaganda media because propaganda is a powerful weapon but I have no interest in being taxed so that the government can spoon feed me half truths and lies.
There is a huge difference between publically funded media and the USIA. We are already being fed "half truths and lies" just about everywhere else on the dial. public media, on the other hand seems to actually be MORE truthful because it is not worried about lost ad revenue. You can turn to Fox News for conservative bias, or MSNBC for liberal bias, but if you wish to hear original thought and proven fact, PBS is among your last places of refuge.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
I don't mind some anti-trust regulation. I don't think 6 or 7 companies constitute a Monopoly. That is particularly true when you consider the vast diversity of opinion on the Internet. But I could agree to regulations that gave close scrutiny to any further deals that resulted in further consolidation.
Being a liberal the PBS and the NPR probably sound reasonable and balanced to you. I guarantee you they don't sound that way to conservatives. It is mainly an act of ommission. They simply don't talk about our side of the issue. Or they love to find whackjobs that present our issues and ideas in the worst possible light. Fox has Alan Colmes on the air for the exact same purpose so we know that technique when we see it.
You mentioned Nixon wanting to kill PBS. I can't say as I remember any liberal Presidents being particularly keen to kill their propaganda arm.
I see no reason to be in favor of being taxed to pay for biased news. Anti-trust regulation is fine. Subsidies are not. The Federal Government should not be in the news industry (or any industry).
Being a liberal the PBS and the NPR probably sound reasonable and balanced to you. I guarantee you they don't sound that way to conservatives. It is mainly an act of ommission. They simply don't talk about our side of the issue. Or they love to find whackjobs that present our issues and ideas in the worst possible light. Fox has Alan Colmes on the air for the exact same purpose so we know that technique when we see it.
Actually, some of the greatest conservative minds are/were frequent guests on PBS and NPR. William F. Buckley comes to mind. He had an influencial show on PBS from 1966-1999, and he was very right leaning. Actually the "whackjobs" you mention brings up an interesting point. Alot of people who don't fit comfortably into the Republican/Democrat worldview that most tv channels make up are simply brushed aside. They find a safe haven on NPR and PBS (Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, and other third party candidates were all given interview time on NPR. I can't think of another news source which can make the same claim) If we are to indeed call ourselves a democratic republic, ALL voices must have a chance of being heard, something which just is not happening on most channels.
You mentioned Nixon wanting to kill PBS. I can't say as I remember any liberal Presidents being particularly keen to kill their propaganda arm.
Gee... why would Nixon have had a problem with reporters asking tough questions? And do you want to take a guess as to who has been in charge of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in recent years? Recent chairman included Kenneth Tomlinson, an ultra rightwinger who was eventually forced to step down, and Cheryl Feldman Halpern, the former chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Your liberal propaganda has been run by conservatives.
I see no reason to be in favor of being taxed to pay for biased news. Anti-trust regulation is fine. Subsidies are not. The Federal Government should not be in the news industry (or any industry).
You keep making the claim of PBS having some kind of liberal bias. I'm just curious, do you want to offer a study which backs this up? Also, what are some "unbiased" sources of news?
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
If we are to indeed call ourselves a democratic republic
But... we're not a Democratic Republic. That honor is reserved for North Korea and the Congo. We're a Constitutional Republic.
:-D
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
ok, fine.
"If we are to indeed call ourselves a constitutional republic"
hope you're happy, sawaboof
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
Being difficult always makes me giddy. Elated, even. :-D
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I find that all forms of media are biased in some way or other. I find it interesting that BBC was mentioned since they are a British Broadcasting Channel and foreign countries have been giving less bias reporting about American politics as of lately. It is safe to say that other then Fox most of the media has been left bias. This whole blog has been about the silencing of talk radio and the killing of the first amendment. We all know how Obama and the left handle those that speak out or ask questions I am referring to Joe the plummer who only ask why are you going to take my money. Joe did not ask Obama to come to his house. Just look at what happened to him.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
I agree with most of what you said but there is one other part of the media that leans very much to the right and that is AM Talk Radio. Most of this discussion about the Fairness Doctrine is the left's overwhelming desire to silence Rush Limbaugh and a few others.
There is no question that talk radio slants right but it is important to look at history to see how this came about. In the 1980's the entire AM band of radio was all but abandoned. FM Radio allowed broadcasters to send much better signals and was able to broadcast in stereo. FM was the future. A few media companies were able to buy up large swaths of the AM bandwidth quite cheaply because nobody wanted them. This bandwidth belongs to the public but these people purchased their rights to use it from the FCC (the Public's designated proxy) in a totally legal manner. AM appeared to be going the way of the dinasuar.
And then along came Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio. The American people LOVED these shows and made Rush rich and caused the AM spectrum to once again be valuable and profitable. The left has repeatedly tried to compete in this market but despite investing hundreds of millions, the American people have never embraced their shows in a significant way and they have repeatedly failed. They have not even been able to attract significant marketshare of listeners in the most liberal media markets.
So now various people on the left are making noise about re-imposing the fairness doctrine in one flavor or another. They want to over-ride the choices made in the free market by the American people and force broadcasters to air shows that are unprofitable and that most people have not and apparently do not want to listen to.
Despite some denials earlier in this thread, the talk about the Fairness Doctrine is coming entirely from the Left. Nobdoy on the right thinks it is a good idea. Apparently they on the left were not so serious about "Freedom of the Press" and Free Speech" as they used to claim to be. The Press is only allowed to be "Free" if what they say includes what the left wants them to say even if the market has no demand for it.
that there are not some democrats calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. What I said was that there is not enough of a push for the fairness doctrine to actually take place. And since the article you cited as proof the President Elect Obama would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine actually quoted Obama advisors scoffing at the idea, I really don't think that Rush has anything to worry about.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
I don't recall citing any articles in this thread.
original blogger
the article he cited:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-obama-fairness-doctrine/ I
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
I had said that I had been mislead by an internet site that was not creditable. I offered up a site that spoke about the return of the fairness doctrine. Also I take no political person at their word during an election. Obama knew that by saying that he was for the return of the fairness doctrine that Americans would turn against him. The right would have spent every dime they had to insure that every American knew what Obama would have said.
Now as I have stated in my blog Obama believes that he has been unfairly attack by the media (mainly talk radio) and the likes of Rush and Hannity. If you could get rid off all those that oppose your view by signing a piece of paper what would you do?
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
We are to assume that Obama is going to do the exact opposet of what he said he would do with no evidence?
"what kind of world would it be if we settled for being human"
Fred Friendly
I am not suggesting that. I merely am saying that keeping promises made on the campaign trail is unlikely. I will be happy if Obama veto's any bill that crosses his desk that even sounds like the fairness doctrine but at the same time Obama's record speaks for itself the only thing that he has ever opposed from his party was the war in Iraq. So logic would assume that Obama will not disagree with his party on the Fairness doctrine. I hope I am wrong. I would also like to state that if he is against the Fairness doctrine (which he has never said) then why would he not sign the “Broadcaster Freedom Act” to make sure that it never returns. As I said earlier he is not against the fairness doctrine he does not support reimposing it.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
[quote=. As I said earlier he is not against the fairness doctrine he does not support reimposing it. [/quote]
So now you have the power to read the president elect's mind?
Very few politiicans have come out in support of a Fairness Doctrine. Hence there is really no risk of it being reinstated.
Untill an actual bill is written up, we don't even have a reason to debate this.
"what kind of world would it be if we settled for being human"
Fred Friendly
He is a politician. Politicians lie most of the time.The only time they can be believed is when they promise to raise taxes, take away freedoms.
In Obama's case, he can't even necessarily tell the truth about raising taxes. He campaigned on rolling back the Bush tax cuts and apparently that is now not going to happen.
The replies are getting hard to read so I move it over. I hope this is okay with everyone.
If someone has a pattern of doing things you would except them to follow it. It is crazy to assume you will get something different by doing the same thing. Also would you just wait around for someone to take your rights away before you speak up and did anything about it. If you keep that good a watch on the government then that is great but if you don't do not except anyone to tell you when the rights start to vanish. You will know this has happened once no one talks anymore.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
the second that a bill of this nature hits the floor, it won't raise the ire of pundits on all channels and of different political persuasions (personally, I can't stand Limbaugh, but I would fight to the death to defend his right to make an a$$ of himself.)
Even if the average citizen isn't well versed enough to know when the bill hits the floor, the watchdog groups which keep us informed are. And unlike other unconstitutional acts of government, we will actually hear about this one, because it will effect the employment of media figures.
you claim:
"If someone has a pattern of doing things you would except them to follow it. It is crazy to assume you will get something different by doing the same thing."
However, all the evidence points toward President elect Obama being AGAINST a renewal of the Fairness Doctrine.
"what kind of world would it be if we settled for being human"
Fred Friendly
I am waiting for the last congress election to be finished and the numbers of both parties be calculated to see if congress is filibuster proof.
They always could have a closed door meeting pass the bill and have Obama sign it before anyone even knows and that worries me. With the vast majority in the house and senate democrat and possible filibuster proof I have prefered to keep an eye on those in power. Another good quote "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." For this reason we need the like of Rush, Hannity and Micheal Reagan.
I will never be able to show you that I am right until it is to late for words to be said. I also think it would be funny if they tried to pass it and then seeing America's anger or lack of anger with this clear violation of our rights.
I hope you have a good Thanksgiving and a great recovery weekend
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749