The "Fairness Doctrine"

Monadnock

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
717
Reaction score
15
Location
Land-of-the-self-proclaimed-10th-Dan's
"Free speech is a constitutional doctrine; using the power of government to mandate political "fairness" is a socialist doctrine."


The so-called Fairness Doctrine is openly touted as a way to squelch conservative's market-driven dominance of talk radio. For example, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma reports overhearing a conversation between Senators Hilary Clinton (NY) and Barbara Boxer (CA). The two Senators were complaining about conservatives' success in the free market of ideas on radio and said "We've got to have a balance. There's got to be a legislative fix for this."

The UnFairness Doctrine is on its face an attack on free speech. Were folks like Senators Clinton and Boxer truly interested in balance, they would want to extend their UnFairness Doctrine to the Public Broadcasting System and the network news programs, almost all of which tilt to the left.
The anti-free speech forces in Congress may want to gag talk radio because Air America has staggered into bankruptcy. Air America, which was the lefts failed attempt to compete with conservative talk radio, has almost no audience. It got its clock cleaned and has only itself to blame. It should not be allowed to hide behind a phony "Fairness Doctrine."

http://www.gunowners.org/a072007.htm
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
4,645
Location
England
At a rough guess I'm assuming you think being a socialist IS NOT A GOOD THING.

I'd also assume you don't know what a socialist is to use the word this way.
 

Andy Moynihan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
174
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
At a rough guess I'm assuming you think being a socialist IS NOT A GOOD THING.

yyyyyyUP.

I'd also assume you don't know what a socialist is to use the word this way.

Well, to us it means the same as a communist( We are built on the premise that what someone earns is theirs, and not the government's to distribute "equally" and to some more equally than others, by their whim.


What does socialist mean to you? Is it different there?
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
4,645
Location
England
Yes it means something different, not communist at all. The UK has a Socialist government, Tony Blair the ex Prime Minister and Gordon Brown our current one are both Socialists. Many in Europe are Christian Socialists. These are popular political parties in Europe and far from what you think of as communist.

To argue that something restrictive or non democratic makes it communist isn't correct anyway, you only acqaint communism with being non democratic because of the awful regimes in the USSR and China. In fact communism is no better or worse than any other type of government. If a tyrant is in charge it doesn't matter what you call the political system. True communism would be not having a government but everything, possessions, decisions money etc being shared by the people not as you describe.
 
OP
Monadnock

Monadnock

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
717
Reaction score
15
Location
Land-of-the-self-proclaimed-10th-Dan's
At a rough guess I'm assuming you think being a socialist IS NOT A GOOD THING.

Too far left or right is not a good thing. That's called extremism.

I'd also assume you don't know what a socialist is to use the word this way.

That wasn't my quote, but I think the author knows quite well what the word means. But feel free to enlighten us all with your definition.
 

Andy Moynihan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
174
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
Too far left or right is not a good thing. That's called extremism.

And that's the other big thing.

Both sides over here are far too polarized, but like it that way to keep people divided and hating the others, and being the sheep they are, most of the people lap it right up and don't look up at what else might be going on behind it.

Like little scurrying ants, going about their tiny concerns, unmindful of the foot poised to crush them.

Make me want to scream they're all so ****in' stupid.
 
OP
Monadnock

Monadnock

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
717
Reaction score
15
Location
Land-of-the-self-proclaimed-10th-Dan's
And that's the other big thing.

Both sides over here are far too polarized, but like it that way to keep people divided and hating the others, and being the sheep they are, most of the people lap it right up and don't look up at what else might be going on behind it.

Like little scurrying ants, going about their tiny concerns, unmindful of the foot poised to crush them.

Make me want to scream they're all so ****in' stupid.

*** BIG INHALE ***

You know, I think you're on to something. My own little conspiracy theory is that there are greater powers beyond the 2 parties that have us squabbling over left and right. Meanwhile it doesn't matter much who is control, they find ways to pass legislation to further enslave us.

It is time to end big government.

*** EXHALE ***

*** Offers to next person ***
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
4,645
Location
England
Are you serious????


Yes, you equate communism with the dictatorships in the USSR and China whuch was no more communist than you are. In reality communism is too idealistic to actually survive long.Communism is basically, ALL the peole taking ALL of the governmental decisions, everybody owning ALL the national assets and everyone having the same amount of money, property etc. The only one of those things that works is the people owning all the national assets. In Europe in many countries the people own the railways, the utility companies, the airlines, the museums, the hospitals, bus companies etc.The rest is a utopian dream.

The USSR and it's satellite countries along with China were no different than the Fascist staes of Hitlers Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and China, they were dictatorships who said they were communist states.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
4,645
Location
England
*** BIG INHALE ***

You know, I think you're on to something. My own little conspiracy theory is that there are greater powers beyond the 2 parties that have us squabbling over left and right. Meanwhile it doesn't matter much who is control, they find ways to pass legislation to further enslave us.

It is time to end big government.

*** EXHALE ***

*** Offers to next person ***

End big government, rule yourselves? ah communism! Ok If you don't like that label, think of the word commonwealth!
 
OP
Monadnock

Monadnock

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
717
Reaction score
15
Location
Land-of-the-self-proclaimed-10th-Dan's
Yes, you equate communism with the dictatorships in the USSR and China whuch was no more communist than you are. In reality communism is too idealistic to actually survive long.Communism is basically, ALL the peole taking ALL of the governmental decisions, everybody owning ALL the national assets and everyone having the same amount of money, property etc. The only one of those things that works is the people owning all the national assets. In Europe in many countries the people own the railways, the utility companies, the airlines, the museums, the hospitals, bus companies etc.The rest is a utopian dream.

The USSR and it's satellite countries along with China were no different than the Fascist staes of Hitlers Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and China, they were dictatorships who said they were communist states.

That may be, but I never brought up communism. Going back to the root of the legislation, this may be why the left could never hold a decent talk radio show. They never stick to the topics.

The author likened the legislation akin to socialist doctrine inasmuch as trampling the 1st ammendment is like leaving what you say, hear, read and write to the Ministry of Truth.

I'm for letting people speak their mind. Our fine Senator from NY, and Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, apparently is NOT.

On a side note, did anyone see that India has its first female president. For a country so lacking in womens rights, I'm surprised.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
4,645
Location
England
That may be, but I never brought up communism. Going back to the root of the legislation, this may be why the left could never hold a decent talk radio show. They never stick to the topics.

The author likened the legislation akin to socialist doctrine inasmuch as trampling the 1st ammendment is like leaving what you say, hear, read and write to the Ministry of Truth.

I'm for letting people speak their mind. Our fine Senator from NY, and Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, apparently is NOT.

On a side note, did anyone see that India has its first female president. For a country so lacking in womens rights, I'm surprised.


Good grief! India had a female prime minister Indira Gandhi on 1966! Pakistan has also had female prime ministers. In both these countries being president is a nominal and ceremonial position. The Prime Minister decribes exactly what they are.


Posted by Andy Moynihan
Well, to us it means the same as a communist( We are built on the premise that what someone earns is theirs, and not the government's to distribute "equally" and to some more equally than others, by their whim.




 

Andy Moynihan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
174
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
End big government, rule yourselves? ah communism! Ok If you don't like that label, think of the word commonwealth!

I live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I hate the **** out of this place, too. :p

I get what you're saying that communism, in it's pure, perfect-world, *philosophical* sense does not represent what real world communism always turns into but that's the point: Humans will always be humans and will always seek to benefit themselves at others' expense no matter who is hurt by their doing so. It's what humans DO.

Like the example given us in the very news incident that prompted this thread.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
The Fairness Doctrine is completely unrelated to the First Amendment. It brings very little energy to bear, either for or against, Free Speech.

But, as long as the right wing nutcases can conflate the two ideas, they win their argument.

The fairness doctrine relates to the finite resource of broadcast spectrum. The broadcast spectrum, for radio and television, in this country are owned by the citizens of the country. Not one group of the citizens, but all of the citizens. The fairness doctrine was an attempt to have all citizens' viewpoints available on those publically owned airwaves.

The fairness doctrine does not / would not effect Fox News - they are a cable channel. The fairness doctricne would not / does not effect MSNBC, or CNN, either.

However, if the fairness doctrine was re-established (it was eliminated under President Reagan), Rush Limbaugh's EIB network would face some challenges. All radio stations would have to more carefully examine the balance of opinion broadcast. Similarly, Sunday morning talk shows, would have to add more liberal voices to their discussions.

Individuals would be able to exercise their first amendment right of free speech via advertising dollars, publications, and standing on a soapbox in the town square.

People who rail about 'The Fairness Doctrine' don't understand that all of the citizens own the broadcast spectrum. They seem to think that the television stations own the airwaves. That's not true.

Who's looking out for you?
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
People who rail about 'The Fairness Doctrine' don't understand that all of the citizens own the broadcast spectrum. They seem to think that the television stations own the airwaves. That's not true.

In my physics class, we build hand radios and discuss this very issue. The bottom line is that the whole purpose of the FCC is to convince americans that they do not own the airwaves and that they have no right to transmit anything without approval. In other words, unless you are willing to spout the official government dogma, then you are psuedobarred.

I give major props to all of the radio stations that transmit just outside of our borders. Those people know the truth of what government censorship in the US is really like.
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,605
Reaction score
51
Location
Long Island
this may be why the left could never hold a decent talk radio show.

TALKERS magazine is the leading trade publication of the talk media. Each year they publish a list of the 100 most important "talkers," called the "Heavy Hundred." (This refers to all talkers, not specifically political talkers) This year, progressive Ed Schultz ranked #5, right behind Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and Dr. Laura; and better than Opie & Anthony #6. Randi Rhodes was #13 (beating O'Reilly #15). Alan Colmes was #16, Bill Bennett #25, Stephanie Miller #36, and Thom Hartmann #51.

Now, if you consider the fact that 76% of political talk radio is conservative (91% is conservative if you only consider the stations owned by the top 5 commercial station owners), the status of libs on TALKERS list is pretty impressive. Very impressive, actually. (Those numbers, by the way, were reported by Tucker Carlson--not a liberal--on MSNBC)

There are some markets--eg Seattle, Portland, San Diego--where Ed Schultz' ratings beat Hannity. Yet Ed Schultz STILL is heard on fewer than 100 stations. There are major markets where Randi Rhodes kills Hannity and O'Reilly--yet Hannity and O'Reilly will STILL get more stations.

So it's a myth that there's some kind of "free market" where consumers are choosing Conservatives overwhelmingly over Progressives, thereby making Conservatives a better commercial choice for the station owners. If the major commercial stations aren't featuring liberal talkers, there isn't a choice for most consumers to make.
 

Ray

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
53
Location
Creston, IA
The fairness doctrine relates to the finite resource of broadcast spectrum. The broadcast spectrum, for radio and television, in this country are owned by the citizens of the country. Not one group of the citizens, but all of the citizens. The fairness doctrine was an attempt to have all citizens' viewpoints available on those publically owned airwaves.
NPR must certainly balance out the right wing people. Except for the "car talk" guys, I love that show...I think they are perfect for something politically neutral and entertaining...

However, if the fairness doctrine was re-established (it was eliminated under President Reagan), Rush Limbaugh's EIB network would face some challenges. All radio stations would have to more carefully examine the balance of opinion broadcast. Similarly, Sunday morning talk shows, would have to add more liberal voices to their discussions.
Do you supose that more conservative shows exists (IF indeed they do) than liberal shows because more conservatives are in the market - or do the conservatives control the money that creates the stations? There are lots of other possible reason. Why do you think it is (if you think it is)?

Individuals would be able to exercise their first amendment right of free speech via advertising dollars, publications, and standing on a soapbox in the town square.
Unless they're saying a prayer.

I like to excercise my first amendment right by choosing who I listen to. By choice, not by being force fed a liberal on a conservative station or visa versa.
Who's looking out for you?
Why, Michael Edward is looking out for me, of course.
 

ChadWarner

Green Belt
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
121
Reaction score
3
Location
Las Vegas
Yes, you equate communism with the dictatorships in the USSR and China whuch was no more communist than you are. In reality communism is too idealistic to actually survive long.Communism is basically, ALL the peole taking ALL of the governmental decisions, everybody owning ALL the national assets and everyone having the same amount of money, property etc. The only one of those things that works is the people owning all the national assets. In Europe in many countries the people own the railways, the utility companies, the airlines, the museums, the hospitals, bus companies etc.The rest is a utopian dream.

The USSR and it's satellite countries along with China were no different than the Fascist staes of Hitlers Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and China, they were dictatorships who said they were communist states.

National Socialist Party= That was Hitlers party. His economic policies were a blend of socialism and terror. I believe the oder is dictatorship, communism, socialism and capitalism with each having the ability to morph into the one above. Dictatorship is the one that can't morph... nowhere to go.
 

Latest Discussions

Top