11 Comments Add your own

• 1. David Johnson  |  November 14th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  Looks like the beginning of promoting the so called “Fairness Doctrine” has begun by the hypocrite liberals. They know they can’t compete on the airwaves, so they intend to shut the airwaves down, plain and simple. If liberal media had an audience that “thinks” with some modicum of intelligence, then Air America would have been a colossal success rather than the opposite being true. Keep up the good work, Pat. Your a good comrade.

• 2. Henry  |  November 14th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  David -

  He didn’t say anything about the Fairness Doctrine. It is just an insider’s view of talk radio. What’s the matter, hit a little too close to home? Also, the construction of your last sentence is incorrect. Should be your’re, not your. Reading and writing must not be your strong suit, you knuckle-dragging, slack jaw Neanderthal.

• 3. jake  |  November 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

  Henry: Shame on you! You made an error (typo?) in correcting David’s post. You should have written “Should be you’re, not your”.
  But that looks like a sentence fragment, not a sentence, to me.
  Looks like you’re the one with the problem in sentence construction. David’s error was not sentence construction, only at worst the error of using the possessive “your ” for its homynym contraction “you’re”.
  If I had to identify the “knuckle-dragging, slack jaw Neanderthal”
  based on what I see before me, you would win in a walk.

• 4. shawnnews  |  November 15th, 2008 at 1:28 am

  This article completely supports my opinion that the right-wing in this country like to portray themselves a victims. Eeven though they won in 2000 and 2004 in national elections, nothing wrong is the fault of their ideas. Blaming the democrats and liberals for your problems is what comes from the ridiculous national Republicans who call themselves the party of personal responsibilty.

• 5. SNuss  |  November 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am

  The point of the article seems to be that the LIBERALS are the victims of the mean, nasty, conservatives. Perhaps if they had a message worth listening to, and/or didn’t come across as a bunch of mean-spirited, America-bashing, nit-picking whiners, they might do better in the ratings.
  RATINGS are what make these shows gain sponsors, which means more money for the station. Air America couldn’t make a go of it, in spite of MILLIONS in subsidies from rich Leftists. If they were any good, they would have developed an audience, and would have grown bigger, just as Rush, Sean, and others have done.
  This so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is actually a Liberal attempt to limit the free speech of conservative commentators on radio, since the Left knows that they can’t compete in a free market.
  But consider this: What if they expanded it to the ENTIRE MSM?(That is “fair”, isn’t it?) How would you Leftists in newspapers and TV handle THAT? Not well, I would bet.

• 6. jake  |  November 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  I recall the last venture in “fairness” on TV. They used to say “And now, to present the conservative view…” and trot out a funny little fat man,who got angry and spit when he talked. I think it was Ed Koch who usually presented the liberal side. The network controlled the choice of spokesperson, and naturally enough, used it to their advantage. They didn’t allow someone, of let’s say Bill Buckley’s stature, to voice the conservative view.
  BTW I’ve heard the same criticism of the choice of Colmes as the liberal spokesman on Hannity&Colmes.
  Let’s face it. Both sides will select, slant, and present news in a manner in keeping with their own viewpoint. If you want to find to truth, listen to them both, evaluate what you hear and see,
  and THINK.
  My high school teachers tried to teach me that. It took a few years, but they finally got through to me.
  Why not leave well-enough alone? There are plenty of information sources available across the entire spectrum of poltical view. Keep it that way.

• 7. Pat Cunningham  |  November 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am

  David Johnson and SNuss are laboring under the misassumption that liberals all want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. Not true. I don’t want it reinstated, nor do any of my liberal acquaintances. Nor does Barack Obama. But David Johnson and SNuss will believe anything they hear from their fellow right-wing kooks. Poor saps!

  Yes, polls show that rank-and-file Democrats are more likely than Republicans to favor reinstatement of the FD, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Again, Obama is against it. Right-wingers don’t believe he’s against it because they want him to be in favor of it — just so they can bitch about it. Poor saps!

• 8. Craig Knauss  |  November 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  We don’t need the Fairness Doctrine. We need accountability. I would like the FCC to enforce existing laws regarding innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies. If I go out and slander or liable someone, I’ll get sued. Why don’t some of these extremist radio announcers get hed accountable for their actions and words? Freedom of speech does not include the right to lie.

• 9. Pat Cunningham  |  November 15th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

  Craig: You’re wrong when you say that “Freedom of speech does not include the right to lie.” Sure it does. It happens all the time. Yes, you can get sued under libel and slander laws, but that doesn’t happen very often. Moreover, it’s difficult for so-called public figures to win slander suits. But falsehoods are commonplace in our political discourse, and there’s nothing we can do about it except to counter with the truth. That’s what I do here, principled fellow that I am. Hardly a day passes without my having to correct the lies peddled by some of our nutty commenters — lies like the one about Obama wanting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. It’s not true, but the right-wing pinheads want it to be true and therefore think it is true.

• 10. SNuss  |  November 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

  Obama may SAY he doesn’t support it, but he also said he couldn’t disown Rev. Wright. What if Speaker Pelosi & company include it in some future legislative package? Will he veto the bill? He is too far in debt to the Far-Left to say “No” without political repercussions.

  Read the following: Pelosi Supports Return of Fairness Doctrine

  The mainstream media have remained virtually silent about Pelosi’s support for the Fairness Doctrine.

  AIM Column | By Bethany Stotts | June 26, 2008

  Talk radio’s suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating “yes,” reports Gizzi.

  Moreover, when Gizzi asked if she supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, “She added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now,’ he writes.

  Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

  Conservative critics have been very concerned that Congress had supported a one-year moratorium on the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but has not supported the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA), which would permanently prevent these regulations from returning.
  Source: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi-support-return-of-fairness-doctrine/

  Also see: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33347
  http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17793
  http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm

• 11. Craig Knauss  |  November 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

  “Hardly a day passes without my having to correct the lies peddled by some of our nutty commenters — lies like the one about Obama wanting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.” And the words were barely out of your mouth when it happened again.

  I wasn’t wrong about lying. Yes, it happens all the time. And yes, it’s seldom actionable. But it is NOT constitutionally protected.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed