Return of the Fairness Doctrine?

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Anybody want to shed some light on what exactly this thing will do? I wasn't around the last time this thing was in play...

Is it just a way to keep...

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Laura Ingraham
Hugh Hewitt
Michael Savage
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
Paul W. Smith
Frank Beckmann

from voicing their opinions...?



First Amendment, anybody?

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

I want to see Pelosi & Co. try and impose this.

The backlash will be HILARIOUS!

[Tahoe]

Its such horseshit. Libs don't listen to the radio, so they try to legislate conservatives from doing it.

Bunch of friggin crybabies or something.

PBS and Moyer get tons of our taxpayer dollars. For what? For him to promote his bullshit agenda. But the libs won't stop that, but they'll go after conservatives getting NO taxpayer money, that I know of anyway.

Its a complete travishacatractomony.

We need to squash this shit as soon as it gets momentum again Wil.

[Fool]

What is the fairness doctrine?

[Tahoe]

It's this thing, where, you wouldn't believe it, that stops some peeps, but not all, from being able to do what they do, cuz other peeps can't get enough ratings to make enough money to support what they say or something, so they get the taxpayers to subsidize, or maybe even pay all of the bills or shut the other guys off.

Its complete bullshit huh?

[Fool]

link?

[Tahoe]

me. I'm your link to the outside world. Your link to reality.

[MoTown]

LOL

In Tahoe We Trust.

[Black Dynamite]

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.

According to Steve Rendall, the Fairness Doctrine was composed as it follows:

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.[3]

Public opinion

In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [26]

A fucking shame that the douches whining the most about this were least likely to provide even the simplest info. Click the link Fool. I will say that i am against it only because of its capability to be severely exploited.

The Fairness Doctrine sometimes appeared in local and state elections. In the early 1970s, George Takei ran for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. Takei was well known for his portrayal of Mr. Sulu on the television series Star Trek. His opponent cited the Fairness Doctrine and demanded that Los Angeles television stations either provide him with free advertising, or remove Star Trek from the air.[citation needed]

I believe in it's basic concept from my own moral standpoint, but not in it as a law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[Tahoe]

Thats a damn shame.