Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

[dragonfly]

Way behind. He kept America safe, by spying on Americans. We haven't had a good president since Andrew Jackson.

You mean the Andrew Jackson who caused all the Indian deaths with the "Trail of Tears" murders? Is that your hero?

 

[Ps104_33]

The airwaves - AM and FM radio and television channels 2-13 ad the UHF channels(if they still exist) on television belong to the public - which is what this debate concerns. I have no problem with the Fairness doctrine applying to those airwaves owned by the public.

I say that Ken should balance out his program with a little hip-hop. We all know how much black people hate bluegrass music. It isnt fair that he only plays bluegrass music.

 

[targus]

I think that it would only be fair to put Rush Limbaugh's show on NPR.

 

[OldRegular]

I think that it would only be fair to put Rush Limbaugh's show on NPR.

You don't understand. The "fairness doctrine" is a one way street.

 

[targus]

You don't understand. The "fairness doctrine" is a one way street.

But that's not fair !!!:tear:

 

[matt wade]

Question to those that support a "fairness doctrine". Should the "fairness" extend to religious stations? Should Christian radio stations be forced to have an opposing view point? After the Gospel message is given, should they have to have someone give an account of atheism, islam, hinduism, buddism, and sikhism?

I'm still waiting for someone that supports the fairness doctrine to address this.

 

[KenH]

I say that Ken should balance out his program with a little hip-hop.

My show is not on public air waves.

 

[KenH]

Matt, I think the fairness rules would only apply to commercial stations. Stations in the 87-92 dial range on FM are only educational, community, and non-commercial. That's why you see NPR and the religious stations in that area ususally.

 

[Enoch]

:BangHead:Wow...Obama is upfront about his evil control over America! Now it's up to us to make our voices heard and put an end to this path of destruction he is taking our beautiful country!

Who supports this on the BB?

 

[matt wade]

Matt, I think the fairness rules would only apply to commercial stations. Stations in the 87-92 dial range on FM are only educational, community, and non-commercial. That's why you see NPR and the religious stations in that area ususally.

There are plenty of Christian stations that are not in the 87-92 range and would be considered commercial stations (several owned by Clear Channel, which is certainly commercial) as well. What about those?

 

[KenH]

What about those?

I don't know, Matt.

All of the religious stations are in the 87-92 range in this area.

Frankly, Matt, I put the chances of a fairness doctrine becoming law within the foreseeble future as next to nothing.

 

[LeBuick]

Here is an example of what I am talking about. I know this is from Canada but it illustrates a good point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRB6gqbEhaM&feature=related

Now I am no Palin supporter but I think this person should have to back up this dribble with facts or keep silent. I felt the same about accusing her child of being her daughters.

Now if average Joe wants to stand on the street corner with a sign and say this stuff then so be it. I believe the media should be able to report what they choose but I think they should legally have to be as factual as possible.

 

[matt wade]

I don't know, Matt.

All of the religious stations are in the 87-92 range in this area.

Frankly, Matt, I put the chances of a fairness doctrine becoming law within the foreseeble future as next to nothing.

Unfortunately I don't see the same low chances as you Ken. With the current group of Congress and President, it's quite possible. While the fairness may initially be aimed at political commentary, if worded the right way it could slide right in religious speech as well.

 

[KenH]

There are around 20 million people who listen to conservative talk radio and if such a bill got pushed in the Congress then Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al, would get them worked into such a rage that the Congress would not dare pass it.

 

[targus]

There are around 20 million people who listen to conservative talk radio and if such a bill got pushed in the Congress then Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al, would get them worked into such a rage that the Congress would not dare pass it.

Why then were Rush Limbuagh, Sean Hannity, et al not able to get the same 20 million people worked into such a rage that Congress would not dare pass the spending bill?

 

[KenH]

Losing a daily 3 hour radio show has an immediate impact, targus. Those opposed to some provisions of the jobs bill won't feel any immediate impact. Besides, don't conservatives that listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, like the huge portion of the bill devoted to tax cuts?