Tweedling Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It seems absurd. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 This should be a fun topic on this board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vacant Horizon Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It seems absurd.  No, it's fair. seriously, conservative radio is pissed about it because they wont be able to get away with as much bullshit as usual.(i say conservative radio, because there is no liberal radio. they would be having to change things a bit too.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 No, it's fair. seriously, conservative radio is pissed about it because they wont be able to get away with as much bullshit as usual.(i say conservative radio, because there is no liberal radio. they would be having to change things a bit too.)  Air AmericaNova M Radio - The Home of Randi Rhodes & Mike Malloy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 No, it's fair. seriously, conservative radio is pissed about it because they wont be able to get away with as much bullshit as usual.(i say conservative radio, because there is no liberal radio. they would be having to change things a bit too.)  Be careful what you wish for. The Fairness Doctrine can be used as a 'weapon' to squealch discussion. In the 1970's, it was often such a pain that NO political content was broadcast on some outlets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 We don't need a fairness doctrine, we need a BS detector. While I'm a conservative, I realize that a lot of what spews forth for Hannity and Limbaugh's pie holes is garbage. Local talk hosts are even worse. We have a guy in DM, Steve Deace, whose stupidity and hubris are absurd. Yet he finds an audience. My colleagues and I -- teachers -- need to do our job teaching critical thinking and analysis skills. With even a modest amount of either, most mass media would shrivel and die. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 See this is what I don't understand. Are the "conservative" talk hosts on because of the right-wing conspiracy in radio or because they have listeners? I'm not sure how it works, but will radio stations be forced to program something that doesn't have an audience? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 How is a fairness doctrine not unconstitutional? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I would love to hear left-wing voices dominate the airwaves, but I oppose any kind of fairness doctrine. It's cumbersome, ineffective, and totally unnecessary. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 No, it's fair. seriously, conservative radio is pissed about it because they wont be able to get away with as much bullshit as usual.(i say conservative radio, because there is no liberal radio. they would be having to change things a bit too.) So you would like our country to get one step closer to communism?  See this is what I don't understand. Are the "conservative" talk hosts on because of the right-wing conspiracy in radio or because they have listeners? I'm not sure how it works, but will radio stations be forced to program something that doesn't have an audience? It's because they have listeners... It's supply and demand. Yeah, agree or disagree with the conservative talk show hosts, they get good ratings so obviously a lot of people are listening.  How is a fairness doctrine not unconstitutional? Exactly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 How is a fairness doctrine not unconstitutional?Because the "public" licenses the public airwaves to radio stations. The government is the conduit for regulating those airwaves. We don't allow Howard Stern to swear, we could, within the confines of the 1st Amendment, restrict freedom of speech over said airwaves. Â Not saying I agree with said logic, but I'm pretty sure that's the justification. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Because the "public" licenses the public airwaves to radio stations. The government is the conduit for regulating those airwaves. We don't allow Howard Stern to swear, we could, within the confines of the 1st Amendment, restrict freedom of speech over said airwaves.  Not saying I agree with said logic, but I'm pretty sure that's the justification. I get that, but I feel like there have to be some problems here. I'm pretty sure that if, for insace, a kkk chapter wants to hold a meeting at a public place, they can't be denied solely on the content of their message, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I am kind of against the Fairness Doctrine. I figure the reason conservatives do much better on talk radio is that their listeners are very angry and bitter people who resent fidelity and despise music, so they listen to AM exclusively. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 I am kind of against the Fairness Doctrine. I figure the reason conservatives do much better on talk radio is that their listeners are very angry and bitter people who resent fidelity and despise music, so they listen to AM exclusively.Now that shit is funny! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I am kind of against the Fairness Doctrine. I figure the reason conservatives do much better on talk radio is that their listeners are very angry and bitter people who resent fidelity and despise music, so they listen to AM exclusively. I thought no one listened to AM after Being There came out.  But yeah, Fairness Doctrine sounds stupid to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Quick question: Is there one single person in government trying to re-institute the fairness doctrine? I know a lot of rightwing talking heads are using this as a means to anger people, but seriously, no one is trying to bring this back. It's a total strawman. So calm down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 No one with half a brain takes what Rush or his ilk says seriously. Yet, they have an audience. Reason? My guess is that there are just a whole lot of people out there who are too damn dumb to see through the charade. If they actually believe the vile shit that is spewed then they have a major problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Quick question: Is there one single person in government trying to re-institute the fairness doctrine? I know a lot of rightwing talking heads are using this as a means to anger people, but seriously, no one is trying to bring this back. It's a total strawman. So calm down.I'd like to reiterate this. Certain people on the right wing have been screaming bloody murder about this being resurrected under Obama, but it's not going to happen. Everyone just chill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Quick question: Is there one single person in government trying to re-institute the fairness doctrine? I know a lot of rightwing talking heads are using this as a means to anger people, but seriously, no one is trying to bring this back. It's a total strawman. So calm down.No one, huh? "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987. Just yesterday I think."I pledge to you to study up on the 'Fairness Doctrine' so that, one day, I might give you a more fulsome answer," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 No one with half a brain takes what Rush or his ilk says seriously. Yet, they have an audience. Reason? My guess is that there are just a whole lot of people out there who are too damn dumb to see through the charade. If they actually believe the vile shit that is spewed then they have a major problem.  And as a result, we all have a major problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Stabenow is possibly the least effective member of the Senate, and she won't have any success with this idea. Sure, there are a few people who'd love to see it make a comeback, but it ain't gonna happen. I'd be more interested in seeing a better defined line between satire and slander. Limbaugh and his ilk like to hide behind "satire" claims, but Limbaugh wouldn't know satire if it gave him a black eye. He does drift over the line into slander and even incitement on occasion, but I don't think the line is well enough defined for anyone to win a court case against him. I don't pretend to have the sufficient legal background to advise anyone on exactly how to redefine that line, but I'd like to see it happen, and then I'd like to see him either tone down his act a bit or get his dumb ass dragged into court with a legitimate chance that he'd lose. I have no desire to silence these idiots, but I do think there should be limits on how far they can push their invective, and that those limits should have teeth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Geeze people.. Although I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, I think it's incredibly insulting to say that his millions of listeners are stupid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Geeze people.. Although I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, I think it's incredibly insulting to say that his millions of listeners are all stupid. Only those who agree with him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Geeze people.. Although I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, I think it's incredibly insulting to say that his millions of listeners are stupid.Maybe, but I am pretty sure the feeling is mutual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.