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.

 

Defend the Fairness Doctrine

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Since we have had the Fairness Doctrine brought up so many times. I would like people to weigh in on the problems of such a thing and how it would be implemented.

I am just going to point out a couple inherent problems with it to get the ball rolling.

First off, in what venues will it be applied. I mean will we have to have WUK give me all the locations that he posts at on the net so I can refute his comments?

Second, how are we going to pay for it? Think about it, the media is created to be a source of information, but it has to be self sustaining. It has to create a profit or how is it going to be paid for. With this problem, let us say a certain quantity of money is to be spent. Then I want to start another news network or talk radio show, will this be stifled because there is no money for implementation.

Third, who is going to be the judge on the content. Who is going to decide what is fair? The government? ME?

Fourth, what are we going to do about that pesky 2nd amendment? Are we going to go the way of some of the countries around the world? Are we going to limit speech if it may offend someone? By the way, I am offended awfully easy.

I will stop here, please address the issues and add any other problems you may think of.
edit on 14-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: add like before people




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


If someones ideas cannot compete in the marketplace, maybe that's saying something.
edit on 14-1-2011 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The fairness doctrine sounds super...
Unfair.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Fairness Doctrine?

It's obsolete as we no longer are limited to two or three networks.

Now everything is market driven.

If you're news is good, interesting, and believable, you will make money and can continue.

If your news is bad or biased, boring, and unbelievable, you'll not be on the air long.

Fairness Doctrine?

Obsolete.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


If someones ideas cannot compete in the marketplace, maybe that's saying something.
edit on 14-1-2011 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)


Huh?

Explain plz.
No clue what that refers to.

Nvm. You're right, I fail at reading comprehension.
edit on 14-1-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
What is the marketplace?

Isn't a place where product is evaluated and succeeds if it is good and fails if it is bad?

I mean, I do not know how many Ugos sold in the open market. But I heard they sold like hotcakes when it was the only thing available.

Is that what the Fairness Doctrine is all about. Failed ideas that cannot survive on their own so they have to control the marketplace?

Just asking. I need someone on here to defend the idea.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



If your news is bad or biased, boring, and unbelievable, you'll not be on the air long.


Faux news seems to be doing well.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
What is the marketplace?

Isn't a place where product is evaluated and succeeds if it is good and fails if it is bad?

I mean, I do not know how many Ugos sold in the open market. But I heard they sold like hotcakes when it was the only thing available.

Is that what the Fairness Doctrine is all about. Failed ideas that cannot survive on their own so they have to control the marketplace?

Just asking. I need someone on here to defend the idea.


I hope you didn't think I was defending the fairness doctrine. On the contrary. I think that if ones point of view fails in the marketplace (radio, print etc), they shouldn't go crying to the government to legislate equal air time, print space etc.

I agree with you, I would like someone to explain why they back the "fairness" doctrine.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by FarArcher
 



If your news is bad or biased, boring, and unbelievable, you'll not be on the air long.


Faux news seems to be doing well.


As does it competitors...or then again, not so much...


Unfortunately for the competitors of Faux News, they aren't doing nearly as well and require legislation to "make things fair"... Oh yes, the Fairness Doctrine....straight out of history and here it comes again.
edit on 14-1-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


I understood your position. I just wanted to expand on it. Spot on.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


I agree. Fox news is not a very good news channel. Not conservative enough for me. That is why I watch online news sources like Pajamas Media.

By the way, in the market as it is, it seems Fox is destroying their competition though. Whodathunk?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Probably the first thing to be eliminated would be your post. Nice analysis.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


No, more than likely they would assign WUK to comment where ever I did. He would get three comments to my one.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


You say Faux news seems to be doing good?

Yes, it's apparently perceived as more accurate, more balanced, and better presented than the competition.

Not long ago, there were three networks who had a lock. They also in the era of cable had an opportunity to jump out front.

They missed the boat.

Talk radio is a prime example of a market driven media.

Biased, left wing BS can't break even, while conservative, more right wing presentations are dominating.

Methinks those who lean left either have little income, or there's not as many of them as they'd like to think.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Boy, I was hoping someone would come in and attempt to defend this before signing off for the night.

Alright, I am putting up a challenge. I promise not to take it too hard on anyone arguing the other side of the debate.

Challenge put forth.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by FarArcher
 



If your news is bad or biased, boring, and unbelievable, you'll not be on the air long.


Faux news seems to be doing well.


Goebbels had a theory... One can never prove or recognize bias if the bias is atuned to a person bias.
This is exactly why a very threatening and constant enemy must always be interjected into the dialog,
you can simply pass off your own failures onto those who are out to get you -

who else would sabotage our WONDERFUL ideas?

Our enemies,

Of course!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Hey, you one of those type like Ed Rendell? Check it out, he must be one of the elite that thinks EVERYONE is an idiot except them.

It is toward the end of the video. Can you imagine this guy being the Fairness Doctrine director?




This goes into why he was losing it a little better.

www.businessinsider.com...
edit on 15-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Not ONE FLAG and not ONE STAR yet NO one wants to defend the Fairness Doctrine.

TYPICAL.

You can go on and on and on about things, but not defend this. Hmmmmm?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
You know whats "Fair", freedom of speech. If you dont like what a news outlet has to say, dont watch it. People that cant tell the difference between bs and the truth, owell, its their own problem.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join