It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Schumer: Fairness Doctrine is 'Fair and Balanced'

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I want to pose a question to all the liberals who might be reading this thread and who can't stand Sarah Palin because of her inquiring on getting rid of certain books from the library. Palin just inquired about that, she didn't make moves toward doing it. Still, the idea of censoring books is horrid.

How is the Fairness Doctrine any different? Isn't radio and television a form of publication, like a book? Isn't determining what lineup is and is not available for public viewing and listening the same as censorship of books from a library?




posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I dont recall the "liberals" complaining about the original fairness doctrine. Unless you use "liberals" like many do, to describe people whose views disagree with yours.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
There is no such thing as fair and balanced in a land where those with money have more power to manipulate legislation than those without. Money is not just ability to transfer ownership of things in our society, its power, and above a certain amount it becomes disruptive to the democratic system.
The middle and lower class have few protections against the wealthy elite, and it IS the governments duty to give them those protections.


This can be applied to EVERY Government in the world, not just the USA....



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

How is the Fairness Doctrine any different? Isn't radio and television a form of publication, like a book? Isn't determining what lineup is and is not available for public viewing and listening the same as censorship of books from a library?


No. Radio and Television are private companies, except for PBS which is paid for with tax dollars and private contributions. Libraries are government entities.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
And again i believe you misrepresent it. Its not about stating what news media can and cannot show. Its saying if your talking about an issue its your responsibility to show all sides of the issue, not just the one you support. This is news and it exists to inform the public, NOT to convince them to see a certain point of view. Our current media, as ive pointed out and no one has challenged, is massively UNFAIR in that americans get no opposing but valid views on many subjects. How is it fair that americans really have no clues what other peoples think of their socialized health systems? How is it fair that most americans have no idea that the first shots fired in the Georgia/Russia war were Georgian?? How is it fair that most americans have never heard of the situation in palestine except for from the mouths of jewish people? If you want to talk about fair, start with us getting fair and balanced views. If our media industry is unable to provide it, as it has shown, then perhaps the government needs to intervene to protect the sanctity of our people. Further more, the news completely fails to give a fair view of american opinion, so most americans have no idea if they are isolated in their beliefs or not. In other countries, these things are regularly relied on, these opinion polls, so people can measure whether they are TRULY represented by their government or not. Here, however, most americans are completely in the dark about public opinion, and how it compares to government policy. The majority of americans desperately support healthcare reform, yet nothing is done. The majority of americans are against the war in iraq, yet there we are. The majority of americans are for tax reform and yet nothing is done. This is the job of the news to spread and yet it is suspiciously quiet on the subject.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Macguyver, while i agree you can say that about most countries, the point here is that you cant legislate for "fair" while the other side is legislating for dominance. In this way it is illustrated that we are in a struggle for freedom and control between the classes, and yes, the government is there to protect the freedoms of the lower classes from the wealth dominated control of the wealthy elite. When most legislation is stacked in favor of the rich and the corporations, you cant push for other regulations to be "fair and balanced" because that still leaves the balance of the legislation weighed to the elite end of the scale, with the middle and lower classes lacking in protection.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
And again i believe you misrepresent it. Its not about stating what news media can and cannot show. Its saying if your talking about an issue its your responsibility to show all sides of the issue, not just the one you support.


And again, just who gets to decide whether all sides have been fairly shown? Will we need yet another federal bureaucracy to monitor this? Will it also then force Keith Olbermann, for example, to start reporting conservative points of view?

I just totally doubt that this last is the democrat's intent in reviving the "doctrine". No, clearly they are only interested in silencing their opposition.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





The thing is one group likes seeing the other group slammed. Patriot Act, oh, slam. Half the people applaud. Fairness Doctrine, slam. The other half applauds. Guns? I dont think so. Half applaud. Free market? Hells no. Half applaud. Each side stripping liberty from the other for jollies and the only person who wins is tyranny.



Awesome post! You couldn't be more right and so many people don't even see it. It's great to see that some do though.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
im sorry...you guys keep stating this but im missing it. Where does this "silenceing the opposition" come from? What is this "censorship" you keep talking of? Is there a clause in this fairness doctrine which prohibits some form of speech that i missed? Does this doctrine somehow preclude people discussing specific subjects, and i just missed it??



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 



Here you go ...

Fairness Doctrine

(my bolding for emphasis)


Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views.


Hope that helps you out. BTW, under obama and aa congress with huge democratic majorities, the FCC would no doubt be forced to interpret things the democrat's way. That's what conservatives are so concerned about, and rightfully so.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
MSNBC has Pat Buchanon on every show. Joe Scarwhatever has a three hour show. A Republican Pennsylvania Representitive has dominated on multiple shows. Then... Olberman is on for about forty minutes. Yeah, real liberal.. Fox News has Republicans on every show, no democrats, no moderates, just right wingers. CNN has some liberals, some conservatives. So really the only people who would be affected are Fox News. They'd actually have to cut Ann Coulter for ten minutes and have an evil liberal on. Oh noes! Also, Olbermann had Ron Paul on his show multiple times during the primaries. CNN had Ron Paul on. Fox News... never said his name. So who are the nut jobs again?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
Fox News has Republicans on every show, no democrats, no moderates, just right wingers.


Wrong again, gamergirl. Fox New has Alan Colmes, and this guy named Juan something or other that is clearly a liberal. I'm sure there are more, just leaving now and don't have time to type more. But still wrong, none the less.

[edit on 11/4/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Alan Colmes has 1 word to every 10 Sean has. He's little more than a seat filler. Pat Buchanon is a key figurehead on MSNBC. Ron Paul spoke, and was interviewed, by MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC has one lib and one con, at least, on every show. Fox has none. It's Sean and Ann Coulter literally telling Alan Colmes to shut up and be quiet.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
centurion, what you posted was an opinion piece that infers from the writing that the bill would have people judging comments and whether they were alowed to be used or not. That is not even close to what i see....i dont see anywhere that it states a regulation upon what anyone says, only that someone of the opposing view must also be given voice, so thats not regulating speech, its regulating against one sided biased news being the totality.

Gamergirl......really cute pic.oh, yeah, nice post too.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Congratulations america, you have a new president...and Obama is his name. I am not an Obama supporter, but for now i shall allow myself the audacity of hope.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Apparantly people don't care if Television is equal. They wanted change, voted for change. And now we will see what he can do.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 


But you said there are no liberals on Fox News and Colmes is a liberal, so I stand by my assessment of your comments - you were wrong. Can you even admit it?




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Be careful what you wish for pexx. If the fairness doctrine is passed, what's to stop a future Republican administration and congress from turning it on the democrats - and with a vengeance.



[edit on 11/5/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Colmes is as much on Fox News as the intern who gets Sean coffee. If I sit in a chair at a black college am I a white student? No, I'm just filling a seat at the college.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 


It seems that you are pathologically (look it up) unable to admit it when you are wrong. There is help for that, you know. Actually I'm surprised to even see you posting here today since your job is done.

To the topic, don't be surprised to see conservative judges start "legislating from the bench" to overturn as unconstitutional the "fairness doctrine" if it ever gets passed.

And liberals should not complain if this happens as liberal judges have been doing the same for years - overturning ballot initiatives that repeatedly pass.

Also, before supporting this, be very careful what you wish for. What's to stop a future conservative government from using it on the democrats - and with a vengeance.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join