Fairness Act Bill by PirateCat

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fairness Act Bill

POSTED BY: PIRATECAT
UPDATED: Saturday, April 14, 2007 17:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 723
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:36 PM

This is the bill supported by liberal democrats because they can't hold it on AM radio. So we make a bill to listen to our point of view. Now didn't the NCAA years ago come out with a regulation that there had to be as many girl sports as boy sports in college. Well now we have lost alot of male sports which made more money for the schools. Ok lets pander to the hacking weak again. Now wasn't Imus one of there people. You said something bad. Forget First amendment. That is a big lib thing. Oh yeh where was NOW over all this flack. Ok I am a huge Elvis big AM junkie. Its pretty sad with Imus as a national morning talk show host. But for the last ten years especially sports we got lame djs on example Mike and Mike. Rome, Dan Patrick, and Mr Bland are just boring. I don't want to hear about your brat wife and spoiled kids. They act so moral and liberal that's not why I listen to sports. OK you won't here a pro gun or right to life statement like Rome talking about how gay men are ok and gun nuts are not. He use to put down NASCAR oh but not now because they are pushing it its great. WFNZ 610 am out of Charlotte NC is great sports talk without politics Packman is a democrat shocked me too. In the mid eighties am was dead Rush came along connected with white men 35 to 50 and boom it went talk. I love conservative talk but some of the neo cons are just in for the cash you can tell. Air America was bad nobody listen to that horseshit. GW is a moron he sucks he is the devil come get real and have a format. If you go after all the talk radio people will just pay for it on satilite and am will die for good.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:05 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Without tackling everything I disagree with in your post I'll try to adress the fairness doctrine in a way that wont drum up too partisan a battle.

Feel free to disagree with this first point, but from my perspective the media in general leading up to the 2006 elections had a bit of a lock-down on news that might be disparaging to the whitehouse or beneficial to the Democratic Party.

Now, while it hardly feels liberal now, it definitely feels different to me..talk seems a little more balanced, though I"m not sure if its any more informative.

If we were to look down the theoretical road to a democratically run executive and legilstature, maybe we'd see something else entirely.

the problem is that the news is a business. Its a big business at that, and it feels the need to court whatever politicians are in power. I don't think its as cut and dry as this...I think big business interests don't always gel so well with liberal positions, so the news doesn't always have much of a reason at all to be balanced or schewed towards a liberal agenda,but that still leaves half the democratic party to cozy up to.

And there's still the matter of access. Over-offend the person in power, you may lose ratings to another channel that that politician will patronize instead.

So while I colored this with my liberal sentiment, I don't think the problem of the media is something that theoretically only harms liberals.

As a democracy, the American people need true information brought to them so that they can make informed decisions. Its just too integral to our system. thankfully we still have unregulated internet, so that we don't feel the full implications of a few companies generating all of the news we can access, but there were efforts to change that.

I don't want a media machine that panders to the left any more than I want one that panders to the right. I don't want the party in power to shape my news. Thats the worst possible outcome, and one that could lead to horrible consequences.

We should never blindly trust our government...we should be scrutinizing it. How much of that can we do if the media is just an extension of the party that holds power?

So yeah, for the sake of both parties, and democracy's continued success, I say bring back the fairness doctrine.

Edited to Add -

another factor that just occured to me that also has nothing to do with insidious plots on either side(heh, though I believe in some myself), is that news is gerenated by the party in power. That may have a lot to do with why I hear a lot more about what the democrats are doing from their own mouths than I used to.

If the disenting, minority party cannot get bills to the floor, if they can't hold hearings and subpoena, they can't really do much that is news-worthy as news seems to be defined(unless they call a black man clean and articulate) and their voices get lost. The fairness doctrine would adress this, and again both parties would ultimately benefit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE