• 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!

Fairness Doctrine-What Say You??

Fairness Doctrine

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • No

    Votes: 6 20.0%

  • Hell No!!!

    Votes: 22 73.3%
  • Total voters
    30
 
So will non-DEMS/REPS get air time with this "Fairness Doctrine" or is it
only Fairness for the REP-DEM Monopoly ?
 
sam_w said:
EPIC FAIL

Really? Where have you heard this? Oh that's right, Rush and Hannity, those bastions of honest intellectualism.

Sorry but this belongs in conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

:rofl

"Epic Fail," huh? Way to prove conclusively you only see what you want to see.

:rofl
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep it civil. Next time I won't be so accomodating.
 
I would of course be against the so-called "fairness doctrine". The entire concept completely goes against the 1st amendment.
 
jamesrage said:
If it was tax payer radio station then yes it should present both sides of issues.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question, aside from emergency and civil defense announcements, why would there be a taxpayer radio station? What business does the government have in running a non-emergency and civil defense announcements radio station?
 
obvious Child said:
Which begs the question, aside from emergency and civil defense announcements, why would there be a taxpayer radio station? What business does the government have in running a non-emergency and civil defense announcements radio station?
Click to expand...

I assumed that since the government has PBS for television then there might be a radio counterpart. The government should be running neither,but if it is then it should present different sides to all issues. These are not private entities and therefore should not be only presenting only one side to any issue.
 
Last edited:
Bassman said:
Folks, we have all heard the desire to reinstate the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine, supposedly to give equal time to opposing sides of an issue. My take on it is simple! It is just a way for Liberals to monopolize all of the media, like they once did before President Reagan repealed it.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, how does the fairness doctrine favor the left? The media is quite biased towards the left, so wouldn't the fairness doctrine result in a general rightward shift of media?

jamesrage said:
I assumed that since the government has PBS for television then there might be a radio counterpart. The government should be running neither,but if it is then it should present different sides to all issues. These are not private entities and therefore should not be only presenting only one side to any issue.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, any argument should be judged on its own merit. I don't expect a PBS documentary about the the earth to include a segment humoring the Flat Earth Society, and I wouldn't want them to
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Just out of curiosity, how does the fairness doctrine favor the left? The media is quite biased towards the left, so wouldn't the fairness doctrine result in a general rightward shift of media?
Click to expand...
It's quite simple, actually. For decades until 1987, There had been a Liberal stranglehold on the media because at the time, station managers did not want the headaches and financial cost associated with the lawsuits and fines resulting from people/groups upset that they didn't get their "equal time". After the repeal, more news outlets, talk radio, and the internet offer more sources than just the big three broadcast and print media.
 
Bassman said:
It's quite simple, actually. For decades until 1987, There had been a Liberal stranglehold on the media because at the time, station managers did not want the headaches and financial cost associated with the lawsuits and fines resulting from people/groups upset that they didn't get their "equal time". After the repeal, more news outlets, talk radio, and the internet offer more sources than just the big three broadcast and print media.
Click to expand...

I'm still not entirely sure I understand. It seems from your post that the effect of the doctrine was reduced competition, which increased the importance of the major (and left leaning) outlets. Is this correct?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I'm still not entirely sure I understand. It seems from your post that the effect of the doctrine was reduced competition, which increased the importance of the major (and left leaning) outlets. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
That was the whole idea behind the "fairness" doctrine. To stifle any competition (re. Conservative points of view).
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Absolutely not, any argument should be judged on its own merit. I don't expect a PBS documentary about the the earth to include a segment humoring the Flat Earth Society, and I wouldn't want them to
Click to expand...

IS there such a thing as a flat earth society or is this just something atheist use to smear religious people?
 
jamesrage said:
IS there such a thing as a flat earth society or is this just something atheist use to smear religious people?
Click to expand...

It is most certainly real, and I don't think it has anything to do with religion. Browse their forums here. The FAQ is one hell of a read.
 
jamesrage said:
I think these people are pulling someone's leg.
Click to expand...

There's certainly a good deal of trolling that goes on there, but unfortunately FES is an illustration of Poe's Law. If it is all a joke the forum is one of the most time consuming and committed instances of trolling I've ever seen
 
sam_w said:
So in other words you are an unpatriotic fascist that can not allow there to be any other dissenting views or opinions outside of your own narrow and uneducated views?
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that this is a non-sequitur...

No more so than when liberals said the same re: GWB
 
jamesrage said:
I assumed that since the government has PBS for television then there might be a radio counterpart. The government should be running neither,but if it is then it should present different sides to all issues. These are not private entities and therefore should not be only presenting only one side to any issue.
Click to expand...

And since they don't present open and balanced views, the government should divest itself of them pronto.
 
Bassman said:
Folks, we have all heard the desire to reinstate the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine, supposedly to give equal time to opposing sides of an issue. My take on it is simple! It is just a way for Liberals to monopolize all of the media, like they once did before President Reagan repealed it.
Click to expand...

Well ideally if the fairness doctrine gives equal time to opposing sides of an issue, then the liberals can hardly monopolize all of the media. Besides, our "free press" isn't worth listening to anyway. Hannity and the likes are morons and can only cause brain aneurysm as the brain tries to escape the horror and stupidity of it all.
 
Just as a reminder for people: bill has been apparently stalled since March and is in no danger of actually getting out of committee, let alone passing, and Obama is against the Fairness Doctrine.
 
Redress said:
Just as a reminder for people: bill has been apparently stalled since March and is in no danger of actually getting out of committee, let alone passing, and Obama is against the Fairness Doctrine.
Click to expand...
He's also against same sex-marriage and raising taxes on anyone making less than $250k
 
Redress said:
I don't put that much thought into non sequiturs.
Click to expand...
That you find my comment a non-sequitur only means you don't understand the point the point.

"Alex, I'll take 'saying one thing and doing another' for $2000"
 
Goobieman said:
That you find my comment a non-sequitur only means you don't understand the point the point.

"Alex, I'll take 'saying one thing and doing another' for $2000"
Click to expand...

He has taken no action on the Fairness Doctrine bill...you know, the topic of the thread. Why don't you save your mindless hyper-partisan drivel for threads that those comments would actually be relevant on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom