I support President Obama (yes, it's true)

[Snorri1234]

Why? Because it means stations must show both sides of the debate?

It doesn't matter what my personel beliefs are. PERSONALLY, if I owned a talk-radio station it would undoubtedly be liberal-leaning. And I would no doubt require some level of fairness of representation on any issue. It's true.
But I don't believe in telling other people what they can or can't listen to, or think. And I think that this "fairness doctrine" is doing just that.

Yeah....you didn't answer the question.

What do you consider bad about telling radio-stations to let both sides of the debate have their say? And I mean, only have their say, whatever the f*ck the stations want to do with placement and time is unimportant because they can decide for themselves.

Notice how Liberals dominate everything, except talk radio?

A.) All that shit is pretty full of flaws. Around half of the country is conservative so how come they're not there. Or is it saying that conservatives are very isolated and don't communicate with the rest of the world?
B.) There is absolutely no explanation as to what is an conservative media and what is a liberal. Nor is there any mention of balanced media of which there are also some.
C.) If I take this shit at face-value it actually says that more fairness is needed. Too many liberal media and too little conservative. This shit works both ways.

This legislation is attempting to drive a stake into the heart of conservative press. It's that simple. It's a new form of censorship.

How so?

This bill doesn't cover the newspapers or tv stations.... just those pesky Conservative radio programs.

Because newspapers and tv-stations aren't a limited outlet. The problem with radio is that there is a finite amount of wavelengths whereas tv, newspaper and internet are practically unlimited.

Now if the bill were to encompass all forms of "news," then this discussion would be very differen't and I might be able to understand the opposing veiwpoint. But I mostly see this as a political trick. And as much a Conservative Christians bug me, I still will gladly defend their Freedom of Speech.

The bill would encompass all forms of news. But it's harder to regulate that because all other forms of news are unlimited so allow plenty of room for opposing viewpoints.

Whatever he talks about, he has to find someone who disagrees with him. It shouldn't be hard for RMr. Limbaugh, but what about the local stations? What happens when a conservative station in a conservative town in a conservative state cannot find someone who disagrees with them?

Uh...most of the times it would actually only be neccesary to live up to the doctrine if you actually can. Like if there is some group complaining that you don't put their opinion in.

If you can't find anyone with an opposing opinion, you don't have to live up to the fairness doctrine.

After the thought that this is a political attack on our Conservative neighbor's freedom of speech, this is the next worst thing that troubles me. Lots of stations do go out over the internet... but still, the poor little stations are going to be hit hard by this. Especially free radio that rely on donations and local support. Liberals aren't going to listen to a conservative station that is constantly asking for money. So it will be much harder for them to find someone to give a counter arguement. I think this is going to hurt the common man's ability to be heard. It's going to cripple local(and distant)free radio.

But why do you think this? Conservative stations don't depend on donations by liberals anyways. The little stations are usually in places where there aren't many liberals around anyway, and they've survived.

If anything, the inclusion of the other side of the debate leads people to discuss that more and call up for the next show and all that.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah....you didn't answer the question.

What do you consider bad about telling radio-stations to let both sides of the debate have their say? And I mean, only have their say, whatever the f*ck the stations want to do with placement and time is unimportant because they can decide for themselves.

Yeah, I dunno why I didn't answer you. My bad ...
Anyway, your response is my response. People can decide for themselves and don't need the government to control what they hear. It's a weird concept, but I think that you get me.
I mean, it may be a horrible stance to have... and I know that. Like if they are pushing creationism or something. But if you were listening to a program about evolution I'm sure that you wouldn't want some creationist taking up your time. It's your right to listen to people who agree with you.

I don't consider it bad that both sides are heard. I find it bad that the governemnt is forcing that.

A.) All that shit is pretty full of flaws. Around half of the country is conservative so how come they're not there. Or is it saying that conservatives are very isolated and don't communicate with the rest of the world?
B.) There is absolutely no explanation as to what is an conservative media and what is a liberal. Nor is there any mention of balanced media of which there are also some.
C.) If I take this shit at face-value it actually says that more fairness is needed. Too many liberal media and too little conservative. This shit works both ways.

If you disagree with it, look it up for yourself. It's pretty well understood in America that Conservatives dominate talk radio. Janine Gerafallo got so disquisted by all of the conservative shows in her area that she donated her time and money into a liberal station. Now she's a liberal radio talk show host.
Liberals do have a monopoly over the other forms of information. We only have 1 big conservative news network (Fox), and both of our major tax-payer paid news (NPR and PBS) outlets are liberal. (and we only have those two that I can think of)
But the fairness doctrine only truly targets radio. I don't consider that to be a coincidence.

Uh...most of the times it would actually only be neccesary to live up to the doctrine if you actually can. Like if there is some group complaining that you don't put their opinion in.

If you can't find anyone with an opposing opinion, you don't have to live up to the fairness doctrine.

Where did you see that? I thought that it was to be the responsability of the stations to screen calls and search out opposition? Which again, hurts free radio.

But why do you think this? Conservative stations don't depend on donations by liberals anyways.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Liberals don't donate, because they don't want to listen. And since they don't listen, they won't be calling in to argue.............. you see where that's going.

If anything, the inclusion of the other side of the debate leads people to discuss that more and call up for the next show and all that.

Doesn't matter. When you're out on the town you have the choice to argue with somone, or not. You have the choice of whether to go to church, or whether to go to Bohemian Grove. And you don't have to listen to someone's crap if you don't want to.

That's part of it, but that's not what this is about. This is just an attack on conservative radio. No matter whether you think it's a good idea or not, you have to realize that this is just a prejudice piece of legislation. I am liberal in my veiw of the world, but I am a strict believer in everyone's rights (American's rights) And even if I hate conservative radio, and completely disagree with it, I still will defend their right to have it. It's like that thing that German Catholic priest said after the war.
'When they came for the Jews I said nothing.
Whent they came for the gays I said nothing.
When they came for the outcasts I said nothing.
And when they came for me there was no one left speak up."
That's an approximate qoute, but it seems appropriate. You can't just let whoever is in power bully around the other team.


Is there no one else who agrees with me?;
A) If you don't like the station, CHANGE IT.
B) This is an attack on conservative radio.
C) It's a new form of censorship.
D) The original fairness doctrine failed for good reason.
E) This is an attack on Freedom of Speech.

[Frigidus]

I'm torn. I like free speech, but I hate Rush Limbaugh. Oh, the humanity!

Nah, I'm against it. There shouldn't be a need to legislate good journalism in my opinion, but hey, most Americans prefer to not consider other positions.

[Neoteny]

Every time I read the title of this thread, it's to the tune of "Jesus Loves Me," or whatever it's called. Perhaps calling him the Messiah is completely founded in fact.

[Nobunaga]

... You guys are amazing. You support pissing on the First Amendment, so long as it shuts up folks you don't like.

... The whole basis of the Fairness Doctrine is moot in 2009. Now it's just fascism.

... Why not just toss protestors in jail for say, 10 years, should the crowd involved not be evenly distributed with concern to political philosophy?

... Same thing, carried to extreme.

...

[Neoteny]

I find it humorous that people who complain about not being able to "teach the controversy" over things like evolution or global warming in the classroom getting so worked up about "reporting the controversy" over the airwaves. A bit hypocritical, no?

It isn't shutting anyone up, it's requiring the media to offer multiple sides of a story. So once Limbaugh gets done bitching about how atheists are ruining Christmas, he gets a few minutes to demonstrate that he actually knows what atheists are up to.

[Nobunaga]

CONQUER CLUB FORUM GUIDELINE UPDATE - EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

Numerous studies reveal that online media has become the arena of choice for progressive opinion and the exchange of "liberal" ideas, to the point where such dominates much of the so-called, "New Media". Though this proves the triumph of the modern progressive's adaptive abilities, at the same time it robs those of divergent opinion the proper opportunity to express opposing ideas.

And so effective immediately, a balance will be maintained in the forums, in the spirit of free speech for all.

Posts which can be construed as "progressive" (a.k.a. "liberal) must be immediately followed by posts which can be construed as "conservative". "Conservative" posts must then be immediately followed by progressive.

Any posts that disrupt this careful balance will be made in violation. Posters of such offending messages will, upon first offense, be warned, and made to suffer a three-day "hiatus". Second time offenders will be perma-banned and fined.

Effective immediately, in the name and cause of fairness.

...

[Neoteny]

Awesome.

This blows.

[Nobunaga]

Awesome.

This blows.

... Was that a liberal or a conservative comment? ... I can't tell.

...

[Neoteny]

Both. The liberal one was first.

Both. The liberal one was wrong.

[Frigidus]

I'm tempted to provide a conservative retort to my post, but Neoteny did it already. It would just be so uncreative.

Shut it, Communist.

[jonesthecurl]

IN the UK there are some rules: anything directly from one of the major political parties on TV or radio (eg party political broadcast) must be balanced by equal air time for the other guy(s).
That's good. But I don't think that you can legislate for the opinions, however lame, of broadcasters.
Having said that, I used to listen to the radio all day in the UK, and never listen to it here - if it's not some broadcaster ranting or preaching, it's a phone-in with much opinion (one way or the other) and little relevance to reality. I miss UK radio real bad.

[jonesthecurl]

...but isn't this about how this isn't gonna happen?

[Snorri1234]

... You guys are amazing. You support pissing on the First Amendment, so long as it shuts up folks you don't like.

... The whole basis of the Fairness Doctrine is moot in 2009. Now it's just fascism.

... Why not just toss protestors in jail for say, 10 years, should the crowd involved not be evenly distributed with concern to political philosophy?

... Same thing, carried to extreme.

...

i guess you don't understand what the Fairness Doctrine is in the slightest.

[Iz Man]

Sure he does.

It will dictate, via gov't mandate, what radio stations must say.

That's why it flies straight in the face of the First Amendment.

[Nobunaga]

... You guys are amazing. You support pissing on the First Amendment, so long as it shuts up folks you don't like.

... The whole basis of the Fairness Doctrine is moot in 2009. Now it's just fascism.

... Why not just toss protestors in jail for say, 10 years, should the crowd involved not be evenly distributed with concern to political philosophy?

... Same thing, carried to extreme.

...

i guess you don't understand what the Fairness Doctrine is in the slightest.

... Government (through lapdog) slaps fines on and pulls licenses of private businesses (radio stations) if they do not broadcast what government dictates, regardless of the fact that there is no good market for it, causing loss of revenue, loss of jobs, hit to the economy, aside from being violently unconstitutional.

... Do you know what the Fairness Doctrine was? Seems not.

... Limited frequencies for broadcasting as a basis of argument was seriously weakened with the innovation of FM radio. Then it was just slaughtered when cable TV came along. The corpse of that argument for the doctrine was hacked to peices by the introduction of satellite broadcasts and 450 channels. Now the internet is just pissing on the rotting remains.

... But still it's just so damned unfair, isn't it?

... This is typical of the progressive view of free speech. It's great, so long as nobody disagrees with what you wish to hear. When such occurs it is labeled racism, fascism, isolationism, what have you.

... Somebody give me a solid argument supporting the doctrine, spelling out the role of government in this. Then support it with solid arguements. If possible, show me where in the Constitution government receives this authority.

... I expect no such reply, but I ask for one all the same.

...

[Snorri1234]

The government doesn't dictate what you must say. It says that you must allow opposing viewpoints room to be said. Rush Limbaugh can still say whatever he likes, it's just that the radio-station must also give some air-time to someone else who wants to say what they think about a certain issue. There is no mandate about how long, who or what the person says, just a law that says they should.

... Government (through lapdog) slaps fines on and pulls licenses of private businesses (radio stations) if they do not broadcast what government dictates, regardless of the fact that there is no good market for it, causing loss of revenue, loss of jobs, hit to the economy, aside from being violently unconstitutional.

This would all be horrible if any of it would be true. Noone is going to lose any revenue or lose their jobs. Why would they? Do you honestly believe people would shut their radio down if they were forced to listen to something they don't like for 5 minutes every 3 hours? hell, they don't even turn of their tv when there is a commercial every 10 minutes.

... Do you know what the Fairness Doctrine was? Seems not.

... Limited frequencies for broadcasting as a basis of argument was seriously weakened with the innovation of FM radio. Then it was just slaughtered when cable TV came along. The corpse of that argument for the doctrine was hacked to peices by the introduction of satellite broadcasts and 450 channels. Now the internet is just pissing on the rotting remains.

All true, which is why I don't really think the fairness-doctrine should be put into place. However, that doesn't mean your other arguments against it are any good.

It is an useless bit of legislation and only costs money, but it's not unconstitutional nor will it result in loss of jobs and money. (At least loss of money for radio-makers.)

... This is typical of the progressive view of free speech. It's great, so long as nobody disagrees with what you wish to hear. When such occurs it is labeled racism, fascism, isolationism, what have you.

No, it is not in anyway.

... Somebody give me a solid argument supporting the doctrine, spelling out the role of government in this. Then support it with solid arguements.

There isn't really a solid argument to make for it, since the doctrine will have so little effect. I think it would be great if people hear both sides of the story instead of just the opinion of an ignorant, hatefull radio-talker, but it won't really help.

Besides, Neoteny did make a very good point that the ones who always demand to "teach the controversy" suddenly are upset when they have to report the controversy. None of these people actually care about what the other side has to say, and when they say "teach the controversy" they really mean "teach what I think". And yet you accuse liberals of doing these things when you are the guilty one.

[Nobunaga]

... Indeed there is no solid argument to make for it. Many to be made against it.

... I am glad we're in agreement on this.

...

[Snorri1234]

... Indeed there is no solid argument to make for it. Many to be made against it.

... I am glad we're in agreement on this.

...

Yes, but you should stop making bad arguments against it. Don't just scream "OMG FREE SPEECH" and make strawmen to shoot down, attack the doctrine at what it actually would do.

[thegreekdog]

... Indeed there is no solid argument to make for it. Many to be made against it.

... I am glad we're in agreement on this.

...

Yes, but you should stop making bad arguments against it. Don't just scream "OMG FREE SPEECH" and make strawmen to shoot down, attack the doctrine at what it actually would do.

Without going into legal details (mostly because I do not have time to look for and quote the various case law on this subject), the Fairness Doctrine, as it is currently written, is likely unconstitutional. The requirement of the Fairness Doctrine is that a radio station would be required to put on air a person or persons or subject matter that is in opposition to the person or persons or subject matter the radio station just had on... or else the radio station would not be permitted to use the federally regulated radio bandwith.

There is a wide body of U.S. Supreme Court case law stating that requiring someone to speak is a limitation on free speech. Therefore, whether one agrees in principal with the Fairness Doctrine doesn't really matter from a constitutional perspective because the law is unconstitutional both on its face and by its application because it limits speech.

[luns101]

The "Fairness Doctrine" will be brought back..... with his majesty's blessing. It'll just be in the guise of something with a different name. (that way he gets to "save face")

OK, just thinking about this a bit more I can see how Obama could publicly say he's against it and then appoint commissioners over at the FCC that would be all for it. So yes, we do need to be watchful to watch his actions more and not just what he claims. Good call, Iz. I was actually just happy at the initial news reports that said he would be against it.

[InkL0sed]

Oh, give me a break. "Good call" my ass.

Why must you assume the worst just because he's liberal? I see no other reason.

[luns101]

Oh, give me a break. "Good call" my ass.

Why must you assume the worst just because he's liberal? I see no other reason.

Calm down, Ink. If you look real carefully, you'll see that I was happy to agree with the president after his initial comments were made public. Of course you don't see any other reason...you're a liberal and you probably voted for the guy. I haven't even responded to half of your posts due to that fact. You want to live in liberal la-la land then go ahead. My post was directed towards Iz Man.

[Iz Man]

Why must you assume the worst just because he's liberal? I see no other reason.

You see no other reason because you are among his flock....

We must assume the worst because he's a politician (ideology doesn't matter), and thus cannot be trusted.
He has already shown a lack of judgment with many of his appointees. His position as Chief Executive mandates that he be subject to intense scrutiny.


We are his boss, not the other way around as you may prefer.