• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Thought Police

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Quote from liberal sponsored bill S. 333 concerning the 'fairness' doctrine:

A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

now I'll refer you to the 1st amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Radio Act of 1927 ensures that anyone wanting to communicate over the public airwaves has got to recieve a government permit.

FCC summarized version of the Fairness Doctrine which was adobted by the FCC in 1949:

The fairness doctrine as developed by the commission imposes upon broadcasters a two pronged obligation. Broadcast licensees are required to provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest in the community served by the licensee and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues.

what this does is place the power of free speech over the airwaves into the hands of three government officials appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate, and given annual operating budgets by the congress.

Bill Ruder assistant secretary of commerce during the Kennedy administration:

"Our strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was to expensive to continue."

"The fairness doctrine was in the back of everyone's mind each time they thought about covering a controversial issue or taking an editorial stand." - David Barlett president of the radio-t.v. news directors association.

And the Red Lion V New London case.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think I learned a few things here. Let me just add that I am against censoring the right point of view. Their voice has every right to be heard.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Quote from liberal sponsored bill S. 333 concerning the 'fairness' doctrine:

A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

now I'll refer you to the 1st amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Radio Act of 1927 ensures that anyone wanting to communicate over the public airwaves has got to recieve a government permit.

FCC summarized version of the Fairness Doctrine which was adobted by the FCC in 1949:

The fairness doctrine as developed by the commission imposes upon broadcasters a two pronged obligation. Broadcast licensees are required to provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest in the community served by the licensee and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues.

what this does is place the power of free speech over the airwaves into the hands of three government officials appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate, and given annual operating budgets by the congress.

Bill Ruder assistant secretary of commerce during the Kennedy administration:

"Our strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was to expensive to continue."

"The fairness doctrine was in the back of everyone's mind each time they thought about covering a controversial issue or taking an editorial stand." - David Barlett president of the radio-t.v. news directors association.

And the Red Lion V New London case.
Click to expand...

The funny thing, now that the right killed the Fairness Doctrine, is that Al Franken will be able to use three hours a day on Air America to campaign for the Senate. :rofl

Also, Thom Hartmann will continue to be able to interview my favorite Independent Jim Jeffords from Vermont w/out having to give equal time to his opponents.

http://jeffords.senate.gov/

For the record - I don't think it's fair - but now killing the Fairness Doctrine runs the risk of shooting Republicans in the arse.
 
Billo_Really said:
I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have influenced me. I have seen the light. You were right.............Now, wake up! Your f_cking dreaming!
Click to expand...
Go get your brain washed! :2wave:
 
There is a bill before congress by Representative Slaughter to reinstate an amended fairness doctrine:

"Partisan, biased material marketed as 'news' is increasingly contaminating our airwaves and democracy," said Rep. Slaughter. "Our democracy depends on an informed electorate. The media is crucial to supporting the free exchange of ideas and providing thorough coverage of the important issues facing our nation. The American public owns the airwaves. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would return integrity to the media and ensure that the American public is adequately informed on all points of view. I encourage all Americans to visit www.fairnessdoctrine.com to help us fight for this vitally important doctrine."

"Political discussion on our nation's airwaves has reached an all-time low," said Tom Athans, Executive Director of Democracy Radio. "Divisiveness and the politics of demonization and personal destruction dominate our airwaves and only serve to divide our nation deeper and deeper. For this reason alone, we should fully consider reinstating The Fairness Doctrine." Rep. Slaughter's bill, the Meaningful Expression of Democracy in America Act, or MEDIA Act, would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that broadcasters "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the Federal Communications Commission between 1949 and 1987 that required radio and television stations to provide all sides of important or controversial issues and give equal time to political candidates. The Reagan Administration then abolished the policy, with President Reagan vetoing a bipartisan bill passed overwhelmingly by Congress in support of it.

Since the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, the nation has seen a dramatic increase of partisan news sources "reporting" biased news with no consequences. Sinclair Broadcasting Inc., a giant media conglomerate with ties to the Bush Administration, recently announced it would air an anti-John Kerry "documentary" on all its affiliates, which reach 25 percent of the population. Only after experiencing intense public outcry, a boycott and sinking stock prices did Sinclair agree to scale back its plans.

"Sinclair and other broadcasters use the public airwaves free of charge," said Rep. Slaughter. "It's their responsibility to serve the public interest and adhere to the highest standards of broadcasting. Airing blatantly political programming is a breach of the public's trust."

According to a Media Matters poll, likely voters overwhelmingly support rules restoring "balance" and "fairness" to the airwaves. When asked if TV and radio stations that use public airwaves should be required to present both sides of an issue, 77 percent of respondents said they should. In addition, 74 percent of conservatives and 71 percent of Republicans say that TV and radio stations should be required to present the issues in a balanced manner. Another Democracy Radio survey showed that 90 percent of all broadcast hours on talk radio are fairly characterized as conservative.
Click to expand...
 
hipsterdufus said:
The funny thing, now that the right killed the Fairness Doctrine, is that Al Franken will be able to use three hours a day on Air America to campaign for the Senate. :rofl

Also, Thom Hartmann will continue to be able to interview my favorite Independent Jim Jeffords from Vermont w/out having to give equal time to his opponents.

http://jeffords.senate.gov/

For the record - I don't think it's fair - but now killing the Fairness Doctrine runs the risk of shooting Republicans in the arse.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is he deserves his voice, unlike you and him I would kill and die for his first amendment right.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The funny thing is he deserves his voice, unlike you and him I would kill and die for his first amendment right.
Click to expand...

Why the personal attack?

Do you hate liberals so much that you can't even engage in a civilized debate? Repealing the Fairness Doctrine is one of the reasons that this country is so divided and partisin. There is no longer a need for the corporate media to present balanced reports and personal attacks by media pundits are the order of the day.

The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules had significant political effects. One longtime Pennsylvania political leader, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today."
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
 
hipsterdufus said:
Why the personal attack?

Do you hate liberals so much that you can't even engage in a civilized debate? Repealing the Fairness Doctrine is one of the reasons that this country is so divided and partisin. There is no longer a need for the corporate media to present balanced reports and personal attacks by media pundits are the order of the day.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
Click to expand...

Yes. :lol: Just Kidding, but seriously I do hate liberal hypocricy and Mr. Frankin with a passion.

The repeal of the fairness doctrine was a milestone in the preservation of the constitution (specifically the first amendment right to free speech) and the only reason why the right has regained its voice.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes. :lol: Just Kidding, but seriously I do hate liberal hypocricy and Mr. Frankin with a passion.

The repeal of the fairness doctrine was a milestone in the preservation of the constitution (specifically the first amendment right to free speech) and the only reason why the right has regained its voice.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly challenged those that hate Franken to come up with an issue to debate.

That challenge remains open.
 
hipsterdufus said:
I have repeatedly challenged those that hate Franken to come up with an issue to debate.

That challenge remains open.
Click to expand...

Well here you go:

Air America radio host Al Franken says conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. But fewer than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the past 15 years have been African-American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom