Fairness Doctrine Might Involve Control of Web

[red states rule]

This has been said before with the Fairness Doctrine. The left does want to silence any and all disenting voices, and this is how they will try

First it will be talk radio

Then TV networks

Then they will go after the internet


FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/13/2008 9:08:51 AM

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.


http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx

[Little-Acorn]

When will they begin "balancing" the extreme dominance of liberal viewpoints on TV news, newspapers, magazines etc.?

Should I start holding my breath yet?

Didn't think so.

[red states rule]

When will they begin "balancing" the extreme dominance of liberal viewpoints on TV news, newspapers, magazines etc.?

Should I start holding my breath yet?

Didn't think so.

You do know who first shed light on Obama's relationship with Wright and Bil Ayers

It was not the liberal media

It was Sean Hannity and it was picked up by the rest of talk radio

Then Fox News got the video off the tape Obama's church sells in the gift shop

This is why Dems are so hyper to get their power and then they will control poltical speech over the airwaves - then turn their attention to the web

Sounds like China to me

[Little-Acorn]

Not sure what to say about this one. That's unusual for me.

The 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, of course. And the main reason for that guarantee, was so that government could not punish you for saying certain things (except provably deliberate lies or slander)... and even that standard was to be relaxed for political speech, fortunately for Democrats and the BUSH LIED!! crowd.

And THAT was because the Framers knew well, the kind of abuse and chicanery govt routinely engaged in to suppress unfavorable viewpoints. The best solution they could see, was to flatly ban government from doing it.

Yet here we have a poll from a reputable group (Rasmussen Reports) that found fully half of the American public was just fine with the Federal government examining what viewpoints are being promoted over the airwaves, evaluating them for conservative/liberal or whatever, and ordering changes if they find anything they don't like.

Nearly one-third of the public wanted this for the internet also... and the article almost seemed to regard that as GOOD news.

I weep for my country at times like this. Rights will certainly vanish unless we are vigiliant in defending, or at least guarding, them. But here we have almost a majority who are willing to let them go.

A vague silver lining to this otherwise-black, thunderous cloud? This near-majority wants govt-controlled "fairness", not just on radio (the domain of Limbaugh, Hannity et. al.), but on television too. Apparently they want the leftist views of most mainstream newsreaders controlled ("balanced"), as well as the conservative views of the radio kings. That's one place the leftists who have been pushing the the Constitutional travesty of the "Fairness Doctrine", have NOT wanted to go: They intended government to reach in and control only talk radio where conservatives dominate, not television where liberals dominate.

Thanks for nothing, you 47%.

---------------------------------------------------------

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_favor_government_mandated_political_balance_on_ radio_tv

47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.

At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

[hjmick]

I can't help but think that there are three factors that contribute to these numbers. The first being the vitriol, animosity, and general lack of respect exhibited by both of the political parties on a daily basis, but especially during the silly season. The second would be the obvious biases of the main stream media. The third, and most important, the complete lack of understanding and ignorance of the first ammendment by what appears to be the majority.

Morons.

I would be very interested in seeing how the numbers break down by age.

[Kathianne]

I can't help but think that there are three factors that contribute to these numbers. The first being the vitriol, animosity, and general lack of respect exhibited by both of the political parties on a daily basis, but especially during the silly season. The second would be the obvious biases of the main stream media. The third, and most important, the complete lack of understanding and ignorance of the first ammendment by what appears to be the majority.

Morons.

I would be very interested in seeing how the numbers break down by age.

I'd bet it's the phraseology of the poll.

[red states rule]

Did they poll anyone other then employees of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washngton Post, and the LA Times?

I did not see the sample breakdown on the link provided

[hjmick]

I'd bet it's the phraseology of the poll.

Okay... Four factors. :coffee:

[Immanuel]

I'd bet it's the phraseology of the poll.

I would agree with Kathianne.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine


Overview

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. [2] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

[Immanuel]

The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine


Overview

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. [2] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Opposing viewpoints can be easily found. If I want to listen to the conservative viewpoint, I can turn on the radio and listen to Rush, Sean, Michael or any of the numerous conservative talk show hosts. If I want a liberal point of view, I can turn on Air America, read the newspaper or turn on any television news broadcast. I am not starved for a variety of viewpoints.

Thus the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is not needed.

A broadcaster should not be forced to present programming they do not want to present.

Immie

[Dilloduck]

The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine


Overview

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. [2] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Hmmmmm??? government regulated media or media mogul regulated media.

Aren't they getting to be pretty close to the same thing anyway ?

[red states rule]

The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine


Overview

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. [2] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

JD the ONLY reason Dems was their Fairness Doctrine is to silence opposing viewpoints

Look at the issue of Rev Wright and Obama. The liberal media ignored the story for over a year

Sean Hannity was on it a year before Fox News ran the video of Wright and his "sermons"

If Dems had their way, the voters would have no idead about Obama's racism and his racist mentor

[JohnDoe]

Hmmmmm??? government regulated media or media mogul regulated media.

Aren't they getting to be pretty close to the same thing anyway ?

The media is already regulated by our government in many different areas.

This has nothing to do with giving liberals or conservatives more time blah blah blah....

This has to do with a limited publically owned resourse covering ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC, thoroughly.

[red states rule]

The media is already regulated by our government in many different areas.

This has nothing to do with giving liberals or conservatives more time blah blah blah....

This has to do with a limited publically owned resourse covering ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC, thoroughly.

BS

You want a government employee to decide what politcal speech can be said on the airwaves JD?

Since libs cannot compete with conservatives in the open market, they now want to FORCE stations to carry their programs, and FORCE people to listen to them

Libs do hate it when people CHOOSE not to listen to their crap, and CHOOSE to listen to conservatives

[Dilloduck]

The media is already regulated by our government in many different areas.

This has nothing to do with giving liberals or conservatives more time blah blah blah....

This has to do with a limited publically owned resourse covering ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC, thoroughly.

How about the owners of the resource ? Why should they have cover anything ?

[red states rule]

How about the owners of the resource ? Why should they have cover anything ?

Radio stations exist for one thing, to make money. If they have listeners, they can sell ads, thus make money

Without ratings they go out of business. Libs now want to decide what programming radio stations can air - all to silence opposing viewpoints

[Kathianne]

The media is already regulated by our government in many different areas.

This has nothing to do with giving liberals or conservatives more time blah blah blah....

This has to do with a limited publically owned resourse covering ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC, thoroughly.

So NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, and all their affiliates will be forced to air both sides of issues or parties or commentators? Which one or more of these only speaks to or of 'one party'?

What about NY Times, Tribune Enterprises, Washington Post, Dow Jones Publications, Hearst Publications, etc?

[Abbey Marie]

I would agree with Kathianne.

Immie

Me too.

[red states rule]

So NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, and all their affiliates will be forced to air both sides of issues or parties or commentators? Which one or more of these only speaks to or of 'one party'?

What about NY Times, Tribune Enterprises, Washington Post, Dow Jones Publications, Hearst Publications, etc?

Who will CNN offer up to "balance" Jack Cafferty?

Who will MSNBC offer up to "balance" Keith Overbite and Chris Matthews?

[Abbey Marie]

The media is already regulated by our government in many different areas.

This has nothing to do with giving liberals or conservatives more time blah blah blah....

This has to do with a limited publically owned resourse covering ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC, thoroughly.

Really? Who decides which issues are critical, and what is "thorough" coverage?

I would think an intelligent woman like you would prefer to decide for herself what you want to listen to or watch, and what content you believe.

[red states rule]

Really? Who decides which isues are critical, and what is "thorough" coverage?

I would think an intelligent woman like you would prefer to decide for herself what you want to listen to or watch, and what content you believe.

Abbey, don't you understand since a huge majority of people are rejecting liberal talk radio, libs have concluded we are to damn stupid to make the correct choices

The only option is for the liberals to make our choices for us. They know what we need to know and when we need to know it

[JohnDoe]

So NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, and all their affiliates will be forced to air both sides of issues or parties or commentators? Which one or more of these only speaks to or of 'one party'?

What about NY Times, Tribune Enterprises, Washington Post, Dow Jones Publications, Hearst Publications, etc?cnn and fox news are not the public airwave/airway....nor the nytimes, tribune, post, dow jones, hearst....etc....

radio broadcast stations...fm and am are but satelite radio is not, and tv BROADCAST stations are considered public broadcast stations....abc, nbc etc...cable is not.

and as i posted, EQUAL TIME is NOT what is being requested, just covering, issues that are OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST....should be thoroughly vetted from all points that would affect the public....not just the view of the public broadcasting leasee....or just the view of the gvt for that matter....

that is my understanding of it.

jd

[red states rule]

cnn and fox news are not the public airwave/airway....nor the nytimes, tribune, post, dow jones, hearst....etc....

radio broadcast stations...fm and am are but satelite radio is not, and tv BROADCAST stations are considered public broadcast stations....abc, nbc etc...

and as i posted, EQUAL TIME is NOT what is being requested, just covering, issues that are OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST....should be thoroughly vetted from all points that would affect the public....not just the view of the public broadcasting leasee....or just the view of the gvt for that matter....

that is my understanding of it.

jd


JD, please explain why you want the government to force radio stations to carry programs the listeners of the stations do not want to listen to

You support choice when it comes to killing the unborn, but you want to government to decide what people listen to on the radio

[Yurt]

The media is already regulated by our government in many different areas.

This has nothing to do with giving liberals or conservatives more time blah blah blah....

This has to do with a limited publically owned resourse covering ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC, thoroughly.

the fairness doctrine is misunderstood greatly, IMO. it covers radio airwaves because radio airwaves are LIMITED and controlled by the government. if TV or Newsprint were similarily limited, i don't believe the FCC would have pulled and the courts would not have frowned on it. the act arose in a time when the "major" media was radio. over time, this medium was no longer the major medium, as TV, newsprint overwhelmingly became the new medium for disseminating information and political viewpoints. as such, the fairness doctrine was and is no longer needed as "ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC" are readilty available to the public.

there are numerous radio stations, and no one is stopping the dems from having a radio station, NO ONE. they had one, they failed. NPR is heavily liberal....

americans who support this, IMO, are merely not getting the right information and are fed bullcaca by the liberal media and its parties....they create this nightmarish vision that conservatives CONTROL the airwaves. this is an absolute lie. but the liberals have so much influence over other mediums, that of course people do not hear the truth and only hear this one sided spew by the liberal fascists.

[red states rule]

Another reason why libs want their programs forced on station owners. their programs can't be cancelled due to poor ratings

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/119430.jpg

[Kathianne]

cnn and fox news are not the public airwave/airway....nor the nytimes, tribune, post, dow jones, hearst....etc....

radio broadcast stations...fm and am are but satelite radio is not, and tv BROADCAST stations are considered public broadcast stations....abc, nbc etc...cable is not.

and as i posted, EQUAL TIME is NOT what is being requested, just covering, issues that are OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST....should be thoroughly vetted from all points that would affect the public....not just the view of the public broadcasting leasee....or just the view of the gvt for that matter....

that is my understanding of it.

jd

Fair enough. Under your understanding of public broadcasting, limited or not, which outlets are NOT providing discussion of issues that are OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST? WHICH are NOT providing ALL POINTS perspective?

[Abbey Marie]

Gov't controlled programming. Our founding fathers would spit nails if they heard this.

[red states rule]

Gov't controlled programming. Our founding fathers would spit nails if they heard this.

Now we know why Dems love Castro and Chavez. They say imitation os the highest form of flattery

[Yurt]

Gov't controlled programming. Our founding fathers would spit nails if they heard this.

programming yes...since this fascist idea by the dems crossed my plate, this thought keeps bouncing around my "mostly" empty head:

what if there was only one radio station, a station that could be owned by one person....

is the fairness doctrine, in this situation, relevant, necessary, or warranted?

assuming this is the only true medium that reaches the nation, e.g., paper pamphlets are not nationally distributed and are distributed locally only.

what say you Abbey?

[JohnDoe]

the fairness doctrine is misunderstood greatly, IMO. it covers radio airwaves because radio airwaves are LIMITED and controlled by the government. if TV or Newsprint were similarily limited, i don't believe the FCC would have pulled and the courts would not have frowned on it. the act arose in a time when the "major" media was radio. over time, this medium was no longer the major medium, as TV, newsprint overwhelmingly became the new medium for disseminating information and political viewpoints. as such, the fairness doctrine was and is no longer needed as "ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC" are readilty available to the public.

there are numerous radio stations, and no one is stopping the dems from having a radio station, NO ONE. they had one, they failed. NPR is heavily liberal....

americans who support this, IMO, are merely not getting the right information and are fed bullcaca by the liberal media and its parties....they create this nightmarish vision that conservatives CONTROL the airwaves. this is an absolute lie. but the liberals have so much influence over other mediums, that of course people do not hear the truth and only hear this one sided spew by the liberal fascists.

i would agree with you, if i hadn't experienced moving to maine...

in many areas, including my own....cable is not available or the cost of satelite tv is cost prohibitive, nor is any kind of reasonable fast internet service.... the average person in maine makes 19k a year here if a man and <17k if a woman.

many here where i live do not have cable or satelite tv, nor do they have a fast internet connection....my husband and i went the past year and a half being frustrated out of wits with the slow connection....and finally decided to chalk up the $1000 bucks a year for a satelite broadband connection, (and another $1000 a year for tv) and even THAT is slow....many people here do not have that kind of disposable income....public tv/radio is all they have...and like i have stated, this is not about dems verses repubs imho.

[Kathianne]

i would agree with you, if i hadn't experienced moving to maine...

in many areas, including my own....cable is not available or the cost of satelite tv is cost prohibitive, nor is any kind of reasonable fast internet service.... the average person in maine makes 19k a year here if a man and <17k if a woman.

many here where i live do not have cable or satelite tv, nor do they have a fast internet connection....my husband and i went the past year and a half being frustrated out of wits with the slow connection....and finally decided to chalk up the $1000 bucks a year for a satelite broadband connection, (and another $1000 a year for tv) and even THAT is slow....many people here do not have that kind of disposable income....public tv/radio is all they have...and like i have stated, this is not about dems verses repubs imho.

Again I'm asking you, what outlets you mention via your understanding, do not provide discussions with a myriad of opinions on issues of 'great importance to the public'?

Also, 'who' determines the 'issues'?

Who determines 'all points of view'?

Who determines fairness all around?

[red states rule]

i would agree with you, if i hadn't experienced moving to maine...

in many areas, including my own....cable is not available or the cost of satelite tv is cost prohibitive, nor is any kind of reasonable fast internet service.... the average person in maine makes 19k a year here if a man and <17k if a woman.

many here where i live do not have cable or satelite tv, nor do they have a fast internet connection....my husband and i went the past year and a half being frustrated out of wits with the slow connection....and finally decided to chalk up the $1000 bucks a year for a satelite broadband connection, (and another $1000 a year for tv) and even THAT is slow....many people here do not have that kind of disposable income....public tv/radio is all they have...and like i have stated, this is not about dems verses repubs imho.

JD, you get a good solid dose of liberalism on the network news programs, and in most newspapers

What Dems do not want is to have anything other then their side made available to the public

Do you know the liberal media has ignored the Republicans who are still in DC demanding the House hold an up and down vote on drilling?

Without talk radio and Fox News, nobofy would know they are there

[Yurt]

i would agree with you, if i hadn't experienced moving to maine...

in many areas, including my own....cable is not available or the cost of satelite tv is cost prohibitive, nor is any kind of reasonable fast internet service.... the average person in maine makes 19k a year here if a man and <17k if a woman.

many here where i live do not have cable or satelite tv, nor do they have a fast internet connection....my husband and i went the past year and a half being frustrated out of wits with the slow connection....and finally decided to chalk up the $1000 bucks a year for a satelite broadband connection, (and another $1000 a year for tv) and even THAT is slow....many people here do not have that kind of disposable income....public tv/radio is all they have...and like i have stated, this is not about dems verses repubs imho.

wow, you situation is what i have been thinking about (not quite, but close) since this crossed my proverbial desk. in fact, i just posed this question to Abbey. amazing how the internet is able to put people from all over the world in touch with each other. according to your experience, you are the exception where you live, so most have only one "major" medium or source of information. while not exactly fitting my question to Abbey....let me ask you this:

what newspapers are available in your town? what radio stations (NPR)...was AirAmerica NEVER played there? further, public TV/Radio is heavily slanted towards the liberal side.

thank for the interesting point JD.


edit: post 27 JD

[JohnDoe]

Gov't controlled programming. Our founding fathers would spit nails if they heard this.

ummm, i guess that's why it was the LAW for over 40 years? this is nothing new, you know that, right?

[Abbey Marie]

programming yes...since this fascist idea by the dems crossed my plate, this thought keeps bouncing around my "mostly" empty head:

what if there was only one radio station, a station that could be owned by one person....

is the fairness doctrine, in this situation, relevant, necessary, or warranted?

assuming this is the only true medium that reaches the nation, e.g., paper pamphlets are not nationally distributed and are distributed locally only.

what say you Abbey?

Not sure what you are asking me, but I would say that since we have a fairly open market for using the airwaves, the fairness doctrine is unnecessary. We also have on/off buttons on every tv and radio I've ever seen.

If there were only one media outlet as in your scenario, then the fairness doctrine would have a role. But by that point we would no longer be recognizable as the country our founding fathers envisioned and fought to create. We'd be screwed.

[red states rule]

ummm, i guess that's why it was the LAW for over 40 years? this is nothing new, you know that, right?

The free market is NOT regulated - yet. Listeners decide what programs make it on the air - now you want the goevernment to make that decision

[Abbey Marie]

ummm, i guess that's why it was the LAW for over 40 years? this is nothing new, you know that, right?

Uh, yes, dear. I learned all about it in law school. Next question...

[avatar4321]

my guess is the people asked dont know what the "fairness" doctrine actually does.

[Yurt]

Not sure what you are asking me, but I would say that since we have a fairly open market for using the airwaves, the fairness doctrine is unnecessary. We also have on/off buttons on every tv and radio I've ever seen.

If there were only one media outlet as in your scenario, then the fairness doctrine would have a role. But by that point we would no longer be recognizable as the country our founding fathers envisioned and fought to create. We'd be screwed.

if you are not sure, your powers of reading btwn the lines and attempting to understand what others are saying is steadfast....you answered the question perfectly.

i think, the liberals are scaring people by using my extreme example...in that, they are trying to scare people into believing that this either - is or will be - the situation. fact is, it is not. fact is, if it was, of course it would be different....all hypos fall victim to their own hypo...true, however your point remains salient, that hypo is not what is happening to this country, nor has it EVER happened to this country. however, i see where some thought the fairness doctrine was important to this country, at one time, not now.

[avatar4321]

ummm, i guess that's why it was the LAW for over 40 years? this is nothing new, you know that, right?

It was law for forty years because the Supreme Court made a very poor decision. Yet, even know, if it were brought before the same exact court, it wouldnt be up held because the airwaves are no longer limited and thus the only justification they had is irrelevant.

[Yurt]

my guess is the people asked dont know what the "fairness" doctrine actually does.

very true, however, to JD's credit, she quoted the salient part about...equal time... so i assumed she understood the rest of the mechanics. good point AVI

[Yurt]

It was law for forty years because the Supreme Court made a very poor decision. Yet, even know, if it were brought before the same exact court, it wouldnt be up held because the airwaves are no longer limited and thus the only justification they had is irrelevant.

oh boy....another thread for sure...but something that bugs me...stare decisis

[JohnDoe]

wow, you situation is what i have been thinking about (not quite, but close) since this crossed my proverbial desk. in fact, i just posed this question to Abbey. amazing how the internet is able to put people from all over the world in touch with each other. according to your experience, you are the exception where you live, so most have only one "major" medium or source of information. while not exactly fitting my question to Abbey....let me ask you this:

what newspapers are available in your town? what radio stations (NPR)...was AirAmerica NEVER played there? further, public TV/Radio is heavily slanted towards the liberal side.

thank for the interesting point JD.


edit: post 27 JD i'm telling yah, my husband and i were shocked! we bought this home and did not even think to ask if cable or broadband was available....moving here from massachusets, the 2nd silicone valley of the usa to paradise, (Acadia region), but paradise without connectivity!

We have local town newspapers that are printed only once a week...trivial type papers...none from my town, but a sister town that has about 4000 people and another sister town about 16 miles away that has about 6000 people....we have less than 1500 in my town...very, very few per sq mile.

There is one, what we would call a major newspaper that covers our region from a town/city about 30 miles away and we can not get it delivered.

as far as tv stations, we can get only 2 here, abc and nbc...cbs and fox do not come in.

I really do not listen to the radio, i don't go to work every day, since i retired (young :) ) but i will ask my husband your questions when he gets home to see if he can answer them.

jd

[red states rule]

JD, please explain why you want the government to force radio stations to carry programs the listeners of the stations do not want to listen to

You support choice when it comes to killing the unborn, but you want to government to decide what people listen to on the radio

[Yurt]

JohnDoe;284459]i'm telling yah, my husband and i were shocked! we bought this home and did not even think to ask if cable or broadband was available....moving here from massachusets, the 2nd silicone valley of the usa to paradise, (Acadia region), but paradise without connectivity!

ouch, my side hurts...I remember at one time i didn't even think about internet speed, etc... but after college, undergrad 2000...i was addicted to T1 speeds, which at that time were only 1.44mpgs. first thing i do now is make sure there is something other than DSL, like cable...LOL. i get cable now, i download at sick speeds, approx. 10 times the speed in college. remember when 14,400 "B"<--notice B not K or M bytes per second, LOL. don't tell me you still get only that.


We have local town newspapers that are printed only once a week...trivial type papers...none from my town, but a sister town that has about 4000 people and another sister town about 16 miles away that has about 6000 people....we have less than 1500 in my town...very, very few per sq mile.

so no USA today...interesting, i thought SLO was remote.


There is one, what we would call a major newspaper that covers our region from a town/city about 30 miles away and we can not get it delivered.

weird.


as far as tv stations, we can get only 2 here, abc and nbc...cbs and fox do not come in.

I really do not listen to the radio, i don't go to work every day, since i retired (young :) ) but i will ask my husband your questions when he gets home to see if he can answer them.

jd

here is a thought.....you "could" get more, it is not impossible. you chose to live there. do you think that matters? if I choose to move to the most remote place in the United States of America....should I expect the same media concerns....in other words.... if one moves to a place, that does not have the modern media, apparently not even the "modern" media of the 50s and do you think that just because of that, the fairness doctrine should apply to all?

[JohnDoe]

ouch, my side hurts...I remember at one time i didn't even think about internet speed, etc... but after college, undergrad 2000...i was addicted to T1 speeds, which at that time were only 1.44mpgs. first thing i do now is make sure there is something other than DSL, like cable...LOL. i get cable now, i download at sick speeds, approx. 10 times the speed in college. remember when 14,400 "B"<--notice B not K or M bytes per second, LOL. don't tell me you still get only that.



so no USA today...interesting, i thought SLO was remote.



weird.



here is a thought.....you "could" get more, it is not impossible. you chose to live there. do you think that matters? if I choose to move to the most remote place in the United States of America....should I expect the same media concerns....in other words.... if one moves to a place, that does not have the modern media, apparently not even the "modern" media of the 50s and do you think that just because of that, the fairness doctrine should apply to all?

i am certain you could get USA today somewhere around here, don't know where but i bet you could, did not mean to imply we couldn't....

And like you, if we ever were to move again, it will be the FIRST thing i ask!!!!!!

we chose to move here, not many people do....98% of the people living here were born here....they farm and are fishermen or loggers or lobstermen or work in papermills for the most part, in my region...Actually i haven't met a neighbor here that doesn't have 3 jobs to make a living, all part time...my realtor was also working for a sign company covering this territory and worked in construction....whatever job was available....the woman that owns the local antique store works at it, and owns a farm of which she brings in fresh eggs to the antique shop and greens to sell there from her farm 3 times a week and she is a maid...she cleans other people's houses....., another friend is a Town selectman (woman) and a realtor, and is a substitute teacher, our town constable is the constable and he hauls dirt and fill, and salts the roads when it snows....

i feel like i am living in the 1800's!

[red states rule]

JD, please explain why you want the government to force radio stations to carry programs the listeners of the stations do not want to listen to

You support choice when it comes to killing the unborn, but you want to government to decide what people listen to on the radio

crickets chirping

[JohnDoe]

JD, please explain why you want the government to force radio stations to carry programs the listeners of the stations do not want to listen to

You support choice when it comes to killing the unborn, but you want to government to decide what people listen to on the radio

I don't want the government to force radio stations to carry programs, this is not what the fairness doctrine does....that's just rhetoric, from your side... :D

I don't even see the Fairness doctrine coming in to play that often, and i do not believe it came in to play that often for the forty plus years it was law...

If i were to give an example on something critical to the public knowing both sides of an issue...maybe

If an owner of a public radio station is also the owner of a football team, and the community he broadcasts in, only has one radio station that reaches the masses....and a vote is coming up, where the people or their representatives are going to vote on whether they want their city to fund a new stadium for this radio station/football team with everyones taxes....

If the owner of the radio station only promoted his point of view or reported via their news only his point of view to the public, without giving the point of view of the citizens that for good reason believe the owner of the football team should be funding the new stadium himself with his millions instead of the tax payers doing such....

All of this should be reported...both views and why each take their position and not just the position of the station.....

[Kathianne]

I don't want the government to force radio stations to carry programs, this is not what the fairness doctrine does....that's just rhetoric, from your side... :D

I don't even see the Fairness doctrine coming in to play that often, and i do not believe it came in to play that often for the forty plus years it was law...

If i were to give an example on something critical to the public knowing both sides of an issue...maybe

If an owner of a public radio station is also the owner of a football team, and the community he broadcasts in, only has one radio station that reaches the masses....and a vote is coming up, where the people or their representatives are going to vote on whether they want their city to fund a new stadium for this radio station/football team with everyones taxes....

If the owner of the radio station only promoted his point of view or reported via their news only his point of view to the public, without giving the point of view of the citizens that for good reason believe the owner of the football team should be funding the new stadium himself with his millions instead of the tax payers doing such....

All of this should be reported...both views and why each take their position and not just the position of the station.....

Once again, using your own examples of the public stations/media that qualify, which ones are not doing this now? Who would choose which issues are of vital importance? Who would decide 'all points of view'?

[red states rule]

JD, this is what will happen

I am the owner of a radio station. It is a successful talk radio station, I am a great conservative linup, the ratings are good, and I have no problem selling ads

Now the libs are pissed no liberal shows are aired on my station. With the Fairness Doctrine I have to add them for "balance"

My listeners do not want to to listen to the shows. They tunr the dial. Ratings drop. Ad revenue drops

I either have to eat the loss, or change the format which means dropping the conservative shows

All this does is silence the vocies libs do not want to hear. The hell with those who do want to hear them, and CHOOSE to listen

[JohnDoe]

Once again, using your own examples of the public stations/media that qualify, which ones are not doing this now? Who would choose which issues are of vital importance? Who would decide 'all points of view'?
I am not certain Kathianne how it worked, you and i both would need to google the law and see if it showed examples of who questioned it and who made the decision to put it in to play.....but....if memory serves me....

I believe i had read a long time ago that 'those that think this is not being done', on a critical issue petitioned the FCC *or whatever the dept was called, and they made the decision that it had to be aired, but the radio station still decided how it would be aired...in a news blip, or with commentary or editorial format etc....

And the TIME spent on the opposing side did not have to be equal from my understanding...it just had to be covered....so 95% of the time he could be promoting his view on the issue as long as he covered the side of the opposition....

[red states rule]

I am not certain Kathianne how it worked, you and i both would need to google the law and see if it showed examples of who questioned it and who made the decision to put it in to play.....but....if memory serves me....

I believe i had read a long time ago that 'those that think this is not being done', on a critical issue petitioned the FCC, and they made the decision that it had to be aired, but the radio station still decided how it would be aired...in a news blip, or with commentary or editorial format etc....

And the TIME spent on the opposing side did not have to be equal from my understanding...it just had to be covered....so 95% of the time he could be promoting his view on the issue as long as he covered the side of the opposition....

Look at how the liberal media is reporting the "news" now JD

Rush Limbaugh is to blame for the chruch shootings in TN

David Shuster at MSNBC is mad over 'Dishonest' Swift Boaters Attacking Obama

CNN is reporting McCain is ‘Aligned With Far Right’ on Russia

Is this the only POV you want 24/7 ?

[Kathianne]

I am not certain Kathianne how it worked, you and i both would need to google the law and see if it showed examples of who questioned it and who made the decision to put it in to play.....but....if memory serves me....

I believe i had read a long time ago that 'those that think this is not being done', on a critical issue petitioned the FCC, and they made the decision that it had to be aired, but the radio station still decided how it would be aired...in a news blip, or with commentary or editorial format etc....

And the TIME spent on the opposing side did not have to be equal from my understanding...it just had to be covered....so 95% of the time he could be promoting his view on the issue as long as he covered the side of the opposition....

Seems to me then that activists could basically tie an outlet in knots, making multiple complaints against a given station. Of course, we know that wouldn't happen.

That's the problem jd., today it's impossible to argue that 'one cannot be heard' as perhaps the communist party certainly could have argued years ago. Granted you live in a locale that is more disconnected than most, but most that wish to get news, have multiple venues. I've had the WSJ delivered by mail. TIME, USA Today, ect., are available anywhere. Even with your limited viewing, you have 2 networks.

Then there's the internet, a wild free for all.

Not so long ago the left was pushing for 'net neutrality' along with this outdated idea. Today they have many outlets, no longer in favor of. Perhaps they should get some of their bloggers/pundits onto Air America or NPR and leave well enough alone?

[JohnDoe]

Seems to me then that activists could basically tie an outlet in knots, making multiple complaints against a given station. Of course, we know that wouldn't happen.

That's the problem jd., today it's impossible to argue that 'one cannot be heard' as perhaps the communist party certainly could have argued years ago. Granted you live in a locale that is more disconnected than most, but most that wish to get news, have multiple venues. I've had the WSJ delivered by mail. TIME, USA Today, ect., are available anywhere. Even with your limited viewing, you have 2 networks.

Then there's the internet, a wild free for all.

Not so long ago the left was pushing for 'net neutrality' along with this outdated idea. Today they have many outlets, no longer in favor of. Perhaps they should get some of their bloggers/pundits onto Air America or NPR and leave well enough alone?

i don't think there are many areas in the usa that are as backwards as here...

all those other medias that you speak of are PAID medias and radio and tv broadcast are not, they are free to the public, and they reach the masses.....instantaneously and IF THERE WAS a critical issue of public interest that was not being covered, under specific guidelines so that it wouldn't be over abused as you mentioned, i think they should be able to petition the FCC for some time to air their issue....

it's hard to imagine in this day and age as you and yurt have mentioned, but it is possible in remote areas...

i see it as a safety net, for both sides of the "aisle of differences", i don't ONLY want to know the liberal's side, i want to hear both sides of an issue of importance, so i can make and take an informed position....not petty stuff but important stuff....that's all....

[red states rule]

i don't think there are many areas in the usa that are as backwards as here...

all those other medias that you speak of are PAID medias and radio and tv broadcast are not, they are free to the public, and they reach the masses.....instantaneously and IF THERE WAS a critical issue of public interest that was not being covered, under specific guidelines so that it wouldn't be over abused as you mentioned, i think they should be able to petition the FCC for some time to air their issue....

it's hard to imagine in this day and age as you and yurt have mentioned, but it is possible in remote areas...

i see it as a safety net, for both sides of the "aisle of differences", i don't ONLY want to know the liberal's side, i want to hear both sides of an issue of importance, so i can make and take an informed position....not petty stuff but important stuff....that's all....


Reality check time JD

You will NOT hear both sides - only the side a government employee decides he/she wants you to hear

Much like in China and Cuba

[Kathianne]

i don't think there are many areas in the usa that are as backwards as here...

all those other medias that you speak of are PAID medias and radio and tv broadcast are not, they are free to the public, and they reach the masses.....instantaneously and IF THERE WAS a critical issue of public interest that was not being covered, under specific guidelines so that it wouldn't be over abused as you mentioned, i think they should be able to petition the FCC for some time to air their issue....

it's hard to imagine in this day and age as you and yurt have mentioned, but it is possible in remote areas...

i see it as a safety net, for both sides of the "aisle of differences", i don't ONLY want to know the liberal's side, i want to hear both sides of an issue of importance, so i can make and take an informed position....not petty stuff but important stuff....that's all....
JD, I don't know what it is you are missing. 'Public airwaves' are all radio, the tv networks, including PBS. Today or recently the head of the FCC said that the internet may well face 'net neutrality', which would be a boon today for the right, certainly not where the left would want to see the Fairness Doctrine.

It's time is past, if there ever was a need for it. It's certainly within the
rhelm of 'be careful what you wish for...'

[JohnDoe]

Look at how the liberal media is reporting the "news" now JD

Rush Limbaugh is to blame for the chruch shootings in TN

David Shuster at MSNBC is mad over 'Dishonest' Swift Boaters Attacking Obama

CNN is reporting McCain is ‘Aligned With Far Right’ on Russia

Is this the only POV you want 24/7 ?i was going to punch the tv when he was on....not for the swift boating crapola but for him cutting off his two guest and promoting ONLY PRO obama stance, not giving his guest 2 nanoseconds to explain their POV....i would have if it were my tv, but it wasn't!!!!!!!

ok, now on topic....MSNBC is cable tv and NOT the public's airwaves....cable is not covered under the fairness doctrine and never will be!

[red states rule]

i was going to punch the tv when he was on....not for the swift boating crapola but for him cutting off his two guest and promoting ONLY PRO obama stance, not giving his guest 2 nanoseconds to explain their POV....i would have if it were my tv, but it wasn't!!!!!!!

ok, now on topic....MSNBC is cable tv and NOT the public's airwaves....cable is not covered under the fairness doctrine and never will be!

JD, like any liberal program the Fairness Docrine will be expanded and will grow like a spider web

First it wil be talk radio

Then cable TV

Then the internet

I have seen liberals grow their programs for my entire lifetime - and they will never stop

[Kathianne]

i was going to punch the tv when he was on....not for the swift boating crapola but for him cutting off his two guest and promoting ONLY PRO obama stance, not giving his guest 2 nanoseconds to explain their POV....i would have if it were my tv, but it wasn't!!!!!!!

ok, now on topic....MSNBC is cable tv and NOT the public's airwaves....cable is not covered under the fairness doctrine and never will be!

I understand what you are saying, but even on cable, even on MSNBC, they have Joe Scarborough. As you said, the requirements may not be 'minute to minute' though many claim it would be, but as I said, the most liberal/conservative, give 'balance.' I or you may not think the balance is fair, they might be 'out manned' but it's there.

If anything, the news is too plentiful and there are too many chattering classes. Myself included! :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

JD, I don't know what it is you are missing. 'Public airwaves' are all radio, the tv networks, including PBS. Today or recently the head of the FCC said that the internet may well face 'net neutrality', which would be a boon today for the right, certainly not where the left would want to see the Fairness Doctrine.

It's time is past, if there ever was a need for it. It's certainly within the
rhelm of 'be careful what you wish for...'

what is net neutrality?

[red states rule]

what is net neutrality?

Check this out JD

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16817

[Kathianne]

what is net neutrality?

Fairness doctrine applied to websites. Could basically make blogging impossible. There are lots of links and the repercussions could effect many aspects of internet, including messageboards and all.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx


FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/13/2008 9:08:51 AM

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.

“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”

A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.

[Kathianne]

I've merged these two threads, after reading RSR's link.

[Silver]

Half Honkey - All Donkey......:lol::lol::lol:

Damn...thats is FUNNY ! :clap::salute::clap:

[red states rule]

Half Honkey - All Donkey......:lol::lol::lol:

Damn...thats is FUNNY ! :clap::salute::clap:

I have alot more just as good

Stay tuned for frequent updated avatars

[red states rule]

This is the primary reason libs want to control political speech on the radio


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/14630.JPG

[JohnDoe]

Fairness doctrine applied to websites. Could basically make blogging impossible. There are lots of links and the repercussions could effect many aspects of internet, including messageboards and all.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx

i don't buy in to the article's view K.....

the net is a paid medium like cable....and over my dead body would i want either of those sensored, nor do i believe the fairness doctrine would affect them....sounds like another scare tactic....imho.

jd

[red states rule]

i don't buy in to the article's view K.....

the net is a paid medium like cable....and over my dead body would i want either of those sensored, nor do i believe the fairness doctrine would affect them....sounds like another scare tactic....imho.

jd

JD, believe it. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell knows what he is talking about

All Dems care about is POWER

[Kathianne]

i don't buy in to the article's view K.....

the net is a paid medium like cable....and over my dead body would i want either of those sensored, nor do i believe the fairness doctrine would affect them....sounds like another scare tactic....imho.

jd

We agree to disagree. Net neutrality has been a concern for over 8 years. Tell me one government program that has actually stayed the same or shrunk. It just isn't in the nature of bureaucracies not to expand.

[actsnoblemartin]

When will they begin "balancing" the extreme dominance of liberal viewpoints on TV news, newspapers, magazines etc.?

Should I start holding my breath yet?

Didn't think so.

:clap: :clap:

[Immanuel]

all those other medias that you speak of are PAID medias and radio and tv broadcast are not, they are free to the public, and they reach the masses.....instantaneously and IF THERE WAS a critical issue of public interest that was not being covered, under specific guidelines so that it wouldn't be over abused as you mentioned, i think they should be able to petition the FCC for some time to air their issue....


I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The time on any radio station costs money. A broadcaster sells broadcast time on his station. Even five minutes cost money... it is called advertising dollars. What you are asking the broadcaster to do is to give up advertising dollars so that liberals can force people who don't want to hear them to listen to their side of the issue... free of charge and at a loss for the broadcaster. In effect, you are asking the owner of the station... who by the way has to pay for the license to broadcast over those airwaves, not only for the license but also for the equipment to do so... to subsidize a message that no one wants to hear.

A politician has to pay for his "airtime". So should anyone who wants to get their point of view on the air and a broadcaster should not be made to give up quality programming time in order to allow freeloaders the chance to tell their side of the story.

Those freeloaders have the right to say whatever they want, but they should have to find their own method of distributing their information.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The time on any radio station costs money. A broadcaster sells broadcast time on his station. Even five minutes cost money... it is called advertising dollars. What you are asking the broadcaster to do is to give up advertising dollars so that liberals can force people who don't want to hear them to listen to their side of the issue... free of charge and at a loss for the broadcaster. In effect, you are asking the owner of the station... who by the way has to pay for the license to broadcast over those airwaves, not only for the license but also for the equipment to do so... to subsidize a message that no one wants to hear.

A politician has to pay for his "airtime". So should anyone who wants to get their point of view on the air and a broadcaster should not be made to give up quality programming time in order to allow freeloaders the chance to tell their side of the story.

Those freeloaders have the right to say whatever they want, but they should have to find their own method of distributing their information.

Immie

ummmmmmmmm right wing hogwash :D, public airwaves are limited, so in some cases only one of them reaches the entire public with their broadcast signal, with other stations getting a much smaller signal audience....

and they are leased from the citizen (who owns them)...it can easily be writen in to a 'lease' by the owners...if the leasee doesn't like it, they can go to cable or satelite....

can they use profanity on public airwaves? no, guess why? because we said so....the leases do not come without requirements....go to cable or satelite and be free as a bird to give the bird....just ask howard stern!

jd

[JohnDoe]

We agree to disagree. Net neutrality has been a concern for over 8 years. Tell me one government program that has actually stayed the same or shrunk. It just isn't in the nature of bureaucracies not to expand.yes kathianne, for now.... we will agree to disagree...

though i will try to do more research in my free time to read up more on the net neutrality movement...i honestly had never heard of it....maybe a mumbling or two of people speculating about regulating the internet, but just chit chat around the 2006 election regarding campaign ads or blogs, but i thought it was blown in to the wind and dropped...?

and i do understand about once something is started with gvt, it just gets bigger and bigger sometimes...warning heeded.

[Kathianne]

yes kathianne, for now.... we will agree to disagree...

though i will try to do more research in my free time to read up more on the net neutrality movement...i honestly had never heard of it....maybe a mumbling or two of people speculating about regulating the internet, but just chit chat around the 2006 election regarding campaign ads or blogs, but i thought it was blown in to the wind and dropped...?

and i do understand about once something is started with gvt, it just gets bigger and bigger sometimes...warning heeded.

JD, that was because the Fairness Doctrine was dropped, for the time being it now appears.

In any case, on to the next subject.

[red states rule]

Here is another great example of how liberals want to present the issues


Larry King Interviews Corsi -- With Media Matters Almost Co-Hosting
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
August 15, 2008 - 08:42 ET

On Wednesday night’s "Larry King Live," CNN interviewed conservative author Jerome Corsi on his new book "The Obama Nation," but Larry King made him sit next to Paul Waldman of the left-wing group Media Matters, who questioned Corsi like he was co-host and continuously badgered him as a liar. King asked Waldman softballs: "Paul, you denounced the book as unfit for publication. Meaning?" King set the tone at the top of the show: "Tonight, is Barack Obama being swiftboated? The man who wrote that book on John Kerry now makes some incredible and even false claims about the current Democratic candidate."

This could be seen as progress, since neither Corsi nor his co-author John O’Neill appeared on "Larry King Live" in 2004. But what does it say about CNN’s confidence in King as an interviewer or CNN’s sensitivity to liberal partisans that Media Matters has to be brought on to badger the interviewee?

King began by drawing out Corsi’s admission that he wants Barack Obama to lose: "Mr. Corsi, did you say -- did you tell The New York Times the purpose of the book is to defeat Obama? Corsi said yes. King underlined it, again: "Did you -- as a good investigative reporter, did you approach this objectively or not?"

King then brought on Media Matters, and even announced their own glowing description of themselves: "In Washington is Paul Waldman, senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Media Matters describes itself as ‘A progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the United States media.’"

You might think that in the context he had just questioned Obama, King could have noted that Waldman was the co-author of a new book called "Free Ride: John McCain and the Media." He might have asked if that book was written with the intention of defeating McCain. But King just tossed a softball question: "Paul, you denounced the book as unfit for publication. Meaning?"

Waldman denounced Corsi (and John O’Neill) as the most flagrant of liars: "Four years ago, Mr. Corsi wrote -- co-wrote a book called Unfit For Command that was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against John Kerry. Every single objective observer that looked at that came to the conclusion that it was just riddled with falsehoods and distortions and unbelievable claims. Now, four years later, he has come out with another book that is also riddled with distortions and falsehoods. So the question is, why on earth would anyone listen to what he has to say about Barack Obama?"

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/08/15/larry-king-interviews-corsi-media-matters-almost-co-hosting