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.

 

FCC finally kills off the Fairness Doctrine

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
The reason this is a good thing, is because the whole "fairness doctrine" idea was aimed to kill conservative radio. The part where it mentions the other points of view must be mentioned is easy for network news programming because they could just air a whole hour worth of the other view points at 3 in the morning when no one is watching and they get to spew all they want during the day.

Whereas with talk radio there is only a certain amount of time alloted and they would then have to fit it into that radio broadcast. Then comes the advertisers pulling ads and all kinds of other stuff.




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
If a certain set of view points has enough merit, it will stand on that merit. It won't have to be provided airtime by law.

There is nothing stopping a 'Rush Limbaugh on the left' from getting out there and doing his/her thing. All depends if people want to listen to what you have to say or not.

Just because a show may have shi*ty ratings, doesn't mean you go run to the government and demand that they put your stuff back on the air. If people want to listen, and you have talent, then you should have no problems.


it has nothing to do with ratings, it is supposed to make the news more fair by removing some bias'



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by emptyOmind
it has nothing to do with ratings, it is supposed to make the news more fair by removing some bias'


Some egos cannot imagine their views not being accepted by others, so they employ the big stick of the govt. to force it down your throat. True for conservative, religious, atheist, liberal, all brandings of majority thought.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by emptyOmind
 


Removing bias? Air America is (or was) on the air weren't they? There are other leftist hosts on the air.

Bottom line, if people wanna listen to what you have to say, they're going to listen. There is no reason to get the government involved in it.

I think what it boils down to is the left was livid over Limbaugh and Hannity and Levin having good ratings on the radio and cried "THAT'S NOT FAIR!". Despite the fact that they dominate other forms of media. The one form of media that's continually eluded them is radio.

Tell you what. If I made a go of it on radio and my show failed, I would blame myself and find another line of work. Not get my panties in a bunch and demand the government do something about it.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Oh man - - - I was following this years ago on a political forum (not ATS). Clear Channel (owned by the religious right) - Michael Powell (son of Colin) - Clear Channel buying up main stations that rent air time to PBS and other public stations (which means they can control what is aired).

This is Huge.

colin powell's son head of fcc?? www.abovetopsecret.com...
NEWS: Shock Jock Stern Crosses Swords with FCCs Powell (fix) www.abovetopsecret.com...
The Religious Right: The NEW American Enemy www.abovetopsecret.com...
Today's FCC vote: The final nail in U.S media's coffin www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by emptyOmind

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The Fairness Doctrine was just a liberal device to force conservative media to air their liberal propaganda. I'm glad the FCC put it down. It's a two edged sword. Now the liberals don't have to be fair either, not that they ever were.


that's a laugh, republicans and liberals.. do we always have to discriminate and subdivide politics based on these black and white principles?

how about right and wrong, fair and unfair? the whole party system is flawed to begin with as it is just another way to divide people on important issues forcing them to one side or the other, and provoking ill will instead of truly doing good for the community.

nearly every politician, no matter what side of the fence they reside on, will say what those whose votes they want, want to hear. but when laws are being made, what it comes down to is whats in it for them, just have a look at the last bailout, the 800 billion dollar one.. the biggest stick-up in history! and we let them take it from us! in order for that to be passed, there were a large number of congressmen and women who signed only because they received something in return, and not something to help the community but instead help themselves by way of campaign votes and/or campaign donations.

don't buy into the party system, invest in truth instead.
edit on 23/8/11 by emptyOmind because: (no reason given)



Sure! Otherwise there would be no need for this fairness Schmairness stuff. It's so freakin transparent. Don't you see it?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It was blatant advertising, product placement and marketing that got us awesome shows like GI Joe, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Voltron, Duck Tales, etc...


I was partial to the first season of "The Real Ghostbusters" myself.

And as for the fairness doctrine, I don't really know how it matters either way because of this...


Originally posted by Hessling

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.


Project Censored: The Media Can Legally Lie


I used to bitch about this a lot on ATS, but nobody ever gave a crap because it didn't fit in with their partisan nonsense.

And finally, the FCC can do whatever it wants, but if it tries to take my Opie and Anthony away I'll start the revolution myself.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Conservatives need talk radio like they need a hooker with herpes.

Yeah, I know that made no sense at all. However, the dumbo-cons own the airwaves (unfortunately).



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


yah just to balance out all of Hollywood, CNN, MSNBC and PBS.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Still, the most radical leftist admin since FDR seems to have initiated this, and there's talk of a backdoor around it. I do not trust anything this admin does.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   


"Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too–all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides–made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions! Suggestions from the State!
-Aldous Huxley Brave New World

"Fairness" doctrine is nothing more than government conditioning people's behavior by verbal suggestion and repeated messages about what's good or bad.

This thread is pretty damn funny, btw. I love it when authoritarians think they hold any sort of moral high ground.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mishigas
 


Conservatives need talk radio like they need a hooker with herpes.

Yeah, I know that made no sense at all. However, the dumbo-cons own the airwaves (unfortunately).



15g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while Posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on the Websites. You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition.


Seriously, how do you get away with this day after day without getting banned? Didn't you learn anything from the off-topic post in the earthquake thread earlier that had 10 stars before I could refresh the page?

Back on topic:
If there's one thing I can't stomach, it's someone trying to force their views down my throat by begging to the government to create laws making it legal to do so.

The gall of some people, to think they have any right whatsoever telling others what to do, and what to listen to. You aren't my parents, and it's none of your business what I do.

I've been following this quite closely as well, and what it boils down to is the left getting all upset about the fact that the other side has people like Rush Limbaugh, who not only have a huge following, but still have their freedoms under the 1st amendment to say what they want without having to give someone an opportunity to butt in.

I'm not a Rush listener or anything, but still enjoy my freedoms to do so or simply turn the dial.

I applaud the F.C.C. for taking such a stance.

The OP may try to act confused, and not fess up to the agenda he/she's pushing... but that's a typical MO, so pay it no heed.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Hey everybody! That local pastor down the street from me preaches christianity in his church! Can you freaking believe that! Its not fair for him to do so. The GOVERNMENT should only ALLOW him to preach christianity if he also preaches every other religion on the pulpit as well. Its only fair.

I understand that if people want to hear about Judaism they can go to a rabbi, and if they want to hear about the muslim faith they can go see the imam...etc.

But I'm an authoritarian and I don't believe in the constitutional right of freedom of association! After all, I know what's right and wrong for you. Moreover, as an authoritarian, I take it personally when people don't accept my personal world-viewpoint as fact, so It makes perfect sense to me to have the government force my perfect doctrine on unwilling others. I get aroused just thinking about it. I relish in the thought of enforcing viewpoints through coercion, compulsion and control.

According to me, nobody has the right to create for themselves the alternative of choice. Open political discourse scares me. The world would be a much safer place if we all just lived in one gigantic moral and social positive feedback loop!



Just relax and acknowledge others right to believe, and obey their own conscience and associate with whom or what they wish. If you would not confront me in my house or in my car and demand that I think a certain way, then I don't understand why you think that it is alright for the government to do it for you.

Everybody isn't going to agree with everything everybody else has to say. Get over it.

edit on 24-8-2011 by METACOMET because: sp



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by lernmore
 


that's typical, only here is having an opinion the same as 'pushing an agenda' ? get real.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by lernmore
 




Seriously, I wish people would learn the difference between the QUOTE button and the REPLY-TO button.

You were replying to The Sword, who was replying to me.

You QUOTEd The Sword. Therefore your post turned out to highlight my userid instead of his. You should have done a REPLY-TO him, and then your post would have looked like this:

************************


reply to post by The Sword
 




reply to post by mishigas
____________________________________________________________________________________

Conservatives need talk radio like they need a hooker with herpes.

Yeah, I know that made no sense at all. However, the dumbo-cons own the airwaves (unfortunately).


******************

instead of like this


Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mishigas
 


Conservatives need talk radio like they need a hooker with herpes.

Yeah, I know that made no sense at all. However, the dumbo-cons own the airwaves (unfortunately).



Why do this? because it makes the post easier to follow, and the reader can see who really said what.

ETA: This post was not solely intende for lernmore. He is a good member with good posts. In fact, I agree with the points he makes in this recent post.

It was intended for the audience in general.



edit on 24-8-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Here's a question for those who favor the Fairness Doctrine:

Suppose Monsanto made a half-hour informercial on the 'benefits' of BGH. Production time and the cost of the radio spot cost about $500K.

Opponents, a group of farmers, want an equal 30 minute radio spot, but cannot afford $500K.

Who should pay for it? Monsanto? The station?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join