Bipartisan was once celebrated in American politics, now its vilified and is shown as a sign of weakness.
Republican, Tea Party, Libertarians, right wing = your either for us or against us George W Bush
Democrats, Independents, Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, Communists, Seldom do these groups attack each other, nor label themselves as listed.
Just respond to a obvious right wing propaganda piece here on ATS and they will label you soon enough.
Foreign owned Fox News (a news entertainment company) Am radio Rush, Hannity, and a host of other "news" broadcast trumpet the same "news" stories
over and over all day long. They also spend alot of time attacking other conservatives labeling them Rinos (republican in name only) while pushing
there scripted news entertainment. They and right wing politicians have made it clear that they would rather shut down the government than work with
the other side for compromise, in fact they view compromise as a terrible thing.
Under GWB there was plenty of conspiracies and corruption and crimes up to and including treason (cheney) but did Fox news break any of these stories?
Or did they just act as a extension of the white house under Bush? CNN on the other hand often accused of being a Obama puppeteer broke the story on
the VA scandal.
But the problems arose when we got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and this has lead to where we are at today:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of
broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest,
equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public
interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be
done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that
contrasting viewpoints be presented.
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld
the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do
so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for
the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded
this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at
Getting rid of this rule elevated radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh to the heights he is at, with no objecting opinions presented all you hear on
AM radio today is one side of the story, one political ideology.
Political leaning media, political parties and one sided messages has got us to where we are today.
edit on 10-8-2014 by LDragonFire because:
(no reason given)