Are the Liberals trying to censure Conservative ideas?

[Mr. Lackawanna]

Isn't it ironic that in the land of the free, the Democrats have got to stifle free speech to hold on to power?

The same week that an MSNBC survey found 90 percent of journalists contribute to Democrats; and the BBC's own study found it's news to be biased toward left-wing causes, we find that powerful Democrat Senators are trying to build up the votes to bring back the so called "fairness doctrine" a hypocritical law that was exposed and stopped during Ronald Reagan's first term.

Here is Chris Wallace of FOX digging into the fairness doctrine's revival.

Oklahoma Senator Inhale says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened.

But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

EINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.




I guess Senator Einstein's goal is if you don't like what people think then silence the idea maker. Is this the forerunner of more government censorship?
How will the average citizen become aware of government corruption? Will we hear it from our government leaders?. Talk radio keeps us informed. whereas the Liberal media will be mostly silent on the problems of the people they support.

[run4it]

Lacks, no one has suggested that conservative ideas should be censored (censured, probably...but that's only common sense). What is being suggested is that for every hour Limbaugh has to spew his distortions and half-truths, the same station needs to allow equal time for argument/rebuttal. It's not a squelching of one side, it's an airing of both sides.

That being said, I'm sitting pretty high on the fence on this one...

Speaking of which, anyone know if the rules of the 'doctrine' would cover BEN, since they also have 1520? Does it have to be the same station, or just the same company/coverage area?

[Timmy]

both parties and the media are guilty of politically correctness and bias

They both have their agendas and their extremes....

You know what I am continually shocked is that people simply do not understand where the majority of this political correctness, corruption, incompetence, abuse...etc....but lets not forget the most important...the complete ignorance of the voter and the taxpayer for corporate lobbyists.

Dont know? The answer is redistricting. Redistricting was once done using existing districts as much as possible so every district was diverse and that diversity of the voters meant that every politician won by a slim margin and was accountable to the taxpayer and the voter or they would not get re-elected.

However, these days redistricting is done in such a way as to give a solid majority to each parties incumbant...a district with majority residents of a particular party or demographic means that the incumbent gets re-elected without difficulty and then becomes more susceptable to the money and campaign donations of corporate lobbyists than voters/taxpayers.

Reform redistricting and get your government back.

[Mr. Lackawanna]

Lacks, no one has suggested that conservative ideas should be censored (censured, probably...but that's only common sense). What is being suggested is that for every hour Limbaugh has to spew his distortions and half-truths, the same station needs to allow equal time for argument/rebuttal. It's not a squelching of one side, it's an airing of both sides.

That being said, I'm sitting pretty high on the fence on this one...

Speaking of which, anyone know if the rules of the 'doctrine' would cover BEN, since they also have 1520? Does it have to be the same station, or just the same company/coverage area?


If so I wish there was some program to counter PBS on Radio and TV.
Maybe we have a radio program in Mr. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on TV

[WestSideJohn]

If the media is as overwhelmingly Liberal as our friends on the Right like to claim, they should welcome the Fairness Doctrine with open arms.

[raoul duke]

If the media is as overwhelmingly Liberal as our friends on the Right like to claim, they should welcome the Fairness Doctrine with open arms.

exactly.

[Mr. Lackawanna]

If the media is as overwhelmingly Liberal as our friends on the Right like to claim, they should welcome the Fairness Doctrine with open arms.

It is the people on the left who want to use the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle the truth by forcing the radio stations to present the left side with out compensation for the air time these shows will use up. The simple fact is no one wants to sponsor such left thinking shows and that is why these leftist radio shows fail.

[WestSideJohn]

It is the people on the left who want to use the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle the truth by forcing the radio stations to present the left side with out compensation for the air time these shows will use up.Ok, I'll play your game. Give a specific example of someone from the Right who will be muzzled or censored should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated.

Or how about if we reverse the players and see if your logic holds up. Do you consider teaching Intelligent Design to be censoring Evolution?

[LHardy]

Ok, I'll play your game. Give a specific example of someone from the Right who will be muzzled or censored should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated.

Or how about if we reverse the players and see if your logic holds up. Do you consider teaching Intelligent Design to be censoring Evolution?

None will be muzzled or censured but they will drop out due to the nonsensical lawsuits that will arise because of the doctrine. Causing most programmers to drop all political talk formats, of any position. It will be self censorship, in avoidance of lawsuits and aggravations. It will end AM radio as we know it and cause all political talk to take place on the internet and paid radio and cable. Where there is no such doctrine.
Fine so be it. See you on internet or cable radio.
It is also a prejudice doctrine for only targeting radio and not all forms of political media.

To answer your last question.
You provide a false comparison.
One debate is over unencumbered free speech.
The other is over indoctrination and belief systems.

Two completely different subject matters all together.

[LHardy]

If the media is as overwhelmingly Liberal as our friends on the Right like to claim, they should welcome the Fairness Doctrine with open arms.

The print/cable/National media are prodominately Liberal. They even give more cash to liberals 9 to 1. The liberal think tanks can not compete on radio.
No one is buying what the liberal think tanks are selling. They simply can not compete, which is a nastey word in liberaldom. Compete onthe open market of free speech. So they need and require the strong arm of governerment to force views onto the public at the expense of someone else.

Compete for audiance share and attract followers and the liberals will have their Rush Limbaugh too! But they can't and Air America was the great hope that went down in flames.

[WestSideJohn]

None will be muzzled or censuredThank you.

You provide a false comparison.
One debate is over unencumbered free speech.
The other is over indoctrination and belief systems.
Two completely different subject matters all together.Not at all. Both Intelligent Design and Fairness Doctrine proponents are trying to provide equal time to minority viewpoints in a particular medium. Since Mr. Lackawanna considers the inclusion of a Liberal viewpoint on talk radio as "muzzling" the Conservative voice I'm asking him if the same standard applies to Intelligent Design... does teaching it censor Evolution?

[WestSideJohn]

The print/cable/National media are prodominately Liberal. They even give more cash to liberals 9 to 1. False. The study you refer to shows that line staff in the media are more likely to support Liberals over Conservatives by your 9 to 1 figure, but the media as a whole does not contribute 9 times as much cash to Liberals as to Conservatives, and Liberals do not outnumber Conservatives 9 to 1. You and that study conveniently leave out management and ownership, which skew Conservative.

I'm all for a civil discourse with you but if you're going to start your old tricks of telling flat out lies (like your whopper that non-profit Planned Parenthood makes billions of dollars in profit each year from abortions) I'm not interested.

Compete for audiance share and attract followers and the liberals will have their Rush Limbaugh too! But they can't and Air America was the great hope that went down in flames.Talk about a double standard. You whine about the unfairness of "the media" being Liberal 9 to 1, but then say talk radio is overwhelmingly Conservative because Liberals can't compete. Maybe the media is 9 to 1 Liberal because Conservatives can't compete.

[Mr. Lackawanna]

Ok, I'll play your game. Give a specific example of someone from the Right who will be muzzled or censored should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated.

Or how about if we reverse the players and see if your logic holds up. Do you consider teaching Intelligent Design to be censoring Evolution?

We could start with the most popular radio show on the air waves, Rush Limbaugh. That is the major reason the Liberals want the Fairness Doctrine passed. They want Rush off the air The Liberals don't care one bit about fairness.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Lacks, no one has suggested that conservative ideas should be censored (censured, probably...but that's only common sense). What is being suggested is that for every hour Limbaugh has to spew his distortions and half-truths, the same station needs to allow equal time for argument/rebuttal. It's not a squelching of one side, it's an airing of both sides.

That being said, I'm sitting pretty high on the fence on this one...

Speaking of which, anyone know if the rules of the 'doctrine' would cover BEN, since they also have 1520? Does it have to be the same station, or just the same company/coverage area?


This is a slippery slope.

[Dumbfounded]

Let's face it. The sensationalism and pseudo-patriotism "Fox TV" has successfully marketed to its viewers is typical of popular, right-wing media that will play the dirtiest name-calling and "Liberal-bashing" to get the largest audience possible.

This is a SMALL sampling of Right-wing media maniacs who have shoved the Liberal media aside and dominate the information market(s)

Rupert Murdoch

"Fox News" and Roger Ailes

Sean Hannity, Bill O' Reilly

Rush, Ann Coulter

Lowry Mays & Sons and Clear Channel
Communications

Right wing maniac, Michael Savage

Sinclair Broadcasting Corporation:Mark Hyman CEO

Dr. Laura

The "Wall Street Journal" editors

The above entities account for the majority of the American public, ensuring that they cover ALL ethnic groups and races (to reach as big a demographic as possible)

ALL major national right-wing media empires are "cheerleaders" and "propagandists" for the Bush Administration

"Fox News" has been called "the government channel" as Vice President Cheney has basically been called the President.

Let us NOT DENY the truth:

That the "Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy" whose goal is to supress the Right-wing radio's freedom of speech is just another Republican "smoke & mirrors" tactic-Misdirection from an Orwellian government.

Liberals make a GREAT scapegoat to blame immorality, socialist and communist values on;An almost vague group of Anti-American subversives intent on destroying the "moral & ethical fabric" of the United States-

I WISH the Liberal media had a strong voice.
"Air America" and "Al Franken" don't exactly pose a "threat" to the sanctity of our freedom of expression.

I'm a "proud Liberal" and I hate to admit it, but Liberals "powerful voice" in the American media and politics?

Its an almost inaudible SQUEAK.

[DelawareDistrict]

The fairness doctrine was a failure the first time and it would be a huge mistake to revive it. The result was the media ceasing most political discourse so they wouldn't have to worry about compliance. The people were the losers because they were cut off from sources of political information.

We already have too much government control of the media, the fairness doctrine just adds to that control. It is un-American.

[WestSideJohn]

I asked for a specific example of a Conservative voice who would be muzzled or censored. You replied:

We could start with the most popular radio show on the air waves, Rush Limbaugh. That is the major reason the Liberals want the Fairness Doctrine passed. They want Rush off the air The Liberals don't care one bit about fairness.

I couldn't disagree more. The chances of someone who brings in as much money as Rush being taken off the air are basically zero.

By the way, I'm not even for the Fairness Doctrine. I just wonder how the same people whining about the overwhelming Liberal bias in the media can then turn around and claim the Fairness Doctrine will benefit Liberals.

[Dumbfounded]

The fairness doctrine was a failure the first time and it would be a huge mistake to revive it. The result was the media ceasing most political discourse so they wouldn't have to worry about compliance. The people were the losers because they were cut off from sources of political information.

We already have too much government control of the media, the fairness doctrine just adds to that control. It is un-American.





The "Fourth Estate" has never been so restricted from investigative reporting of our government;Keeping "tabs" on the government for the American public.

I remember legislation being proposed regarding reporters having to report their confidential sources which IF passed, reporter's previously "anonymous sources" would have no protection.
Someone please correct me on the above if I am incorrect.

Never expect another "Watergate-type" expose' in the press again.

If Woodward & Bernstein tried to question witnesses/informants about Bush or Cheney TODAY, they would "disappear."


In this day & age of hi-tech surveillence (not being "parnoid") how much privacy can a reporter expect to have from the government?

A witch hunt with the Clinton & Lewinsky scandal
The vast majority of the media praises George W. Bush & co., makes excuses and rationizations for him when he screws up

Under the ageis of the Right-wing media, Joseph Wilson writes an editorial in the N.Y. times criticizing the Bush administration's accusation of Iraq's "nuclear weapons program" and the Right-wing uses the press, a newspaper column to expose his wife, Valerie Plame & all of her sources.

Cheney to Libby to the "leaked information"
This is one tiny example of "who's really in charge."

The Right-wing media is in charge and the information we're given has been heavily edited, "pastuerized" and just what we want to hear.

Think of the consumer psychological studies done for places like casinos with no windows or clocks;Nothing to distract the gambler so that they keep on betting.

The Right-wing media knows exactly what their audience wants and sadly, due to the masters the Right-wing media serves, the American public's access to information (that isn't a "threat" to national security) has been ommitted.

The SUPRESSION of the Press is unprecedented.

Caskets and U.S. casualties shown on TV during Vietnam
No caskets and U.S. casualties shown coming from Iraq.
Think its because the U.S. public would lose its mind and protest the war more than its already TRYING to do?

I remember hearing Rush Lindbaugh saying, "why do they (news) have to report the death toll of U.S. soldiers on a daily basis? (paraphrased).