Liberals Want End of 'Right-Wing Radio'

Originally posted by dgtempe
The FCC should crack down on this and permit nothing but true reporting- in keeping with good excellence in reporting and journalism.

Originally posted by apc
Because their shows are for entertainment, not formal journalism.

Originally posted by dgtempe
We should not have OPINION shows. Those people are ....well, you know, everyone has an opinion as well as one of these.

Originally posted by dgtempe
I dont care about anyone's opinion on radio or tv. Just give me STRAIGHT news, that's all that's needed.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Explain to me why the likes of Rosie odonnell cant voice an opinion, or Ed Asner getting laughed off tv, or countless of others and i may change my mind.

Originally posted by grover
Well to mock someone with a disease like Michael J. Fox, just because he disagrees with him does not speak well of his character. At least in my book it doesn't.

Originally posted by semperfortis


Self Control by who's standards?

Yours?

Mine?

Why is your standard any better than mine? Because you say so? Why is your standard better than Rush? Over 20 million people think that Rush is doing just fine. Are there that many people that think your standard is the "one"?

I'm guess that 20 million people don't know who you are any more than they know who I am..

Guessing mind you, but I'll wager it is true..

Currently I'll side with the 20 million that apparently agree with Rush and take my chances instead of the hate and vitriol on here being spewed forth trying to destroy free speech...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

Oh of course you have not come right out and said it! Libs never do, you dance around it...

Spin it all you like

YOU and all those like you, want to take away the broadcasters freedoms by TELLING them what they must do...

Sugar coat it all you want to, your intent is clear...

I have a book written by Neal Bortz though, that you will NEVER make be burn...

Semper

Originally posted by grover
Since you brought it up... you first. Won't happen will it?

Originally posted by grover
The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.

The doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision and restore the Fairness Doctrine.

This proposed legislation has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half. Conservatives also claim that liberals already dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media, which would not be subject to the regulations required by The Fairness Doctrine.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who might request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same to another.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983 political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.

This rule was originally created by the Federal Communications Commission in 1927, in the Radio Act. It was later superseded by the Communications Act, where the Equal Time Rule lies under Section 315.

A related provision of Section 315 requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser". Another provision prohibits stations from censoring campaign ads.

The rule was created because FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of the elections.

The Equal-time rule is sometimes confused with the fairness doctrine.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

Originally posted by grover
And for the record when I said "As for how educated his listeners are... you flatter yourselves." It was in response to: "Limbaugh's listeners tend to be highly educated and up on issues." Which is not so much a slam as an objection to a very broad generalization. It would be an equally broad generalization to say the same thing about all liberals.
[edit on 27-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
OK I have just about had enough of this crap.
Fourth...How over the top is his behavior that he almost immediately got fired from ESPAN after one broadcast for racist comments about black sports players?

I have no respect for ANYONE who plays that kind of game.