PDA

View Full Version : The Fairness Doctrine

writeacliche
11/08/08, 07:14 AM
OK, I'm on Facebook and have been invited by a bunch of people to join "SAY NO TO THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE". I look at these people and they are the same conservatives who are terrified of Obama. Whatever. I had never heard of the Fairness Doctrine before and when I looked over it on Wikipedia..it didn't seem like a bad idea.

Why are certain groups of people terrified of it?
xshady121
11/08/08, 08:27 AM
You obviously didn't do a thorough job researching it. The fairness doctrine says every station must provide equal time to opposing viewpoints. Also, if someone makes a defaming remark to somebody on air, the station must give equal time (for free) to the person who was offended. This would cripple Fox News, MSNBC, and all talk radio. We also wouldn't see debates as they would violate the equal time rule. Conservatives oppose it because it isn't democratic, democrats (generally) endorse it because talk radio (sans Air America) is overwhelming dominated by conservatives. And even at that, the majority of democrats still oppose it, because the fairness doctrine is bad for business, and american politics.

You should do a better job researching something before you try to defend it. It's been critiqued a bunch of times on here already.
writeacliche
11/08/08, 08:49 AM
I was asked to join something I didn't know anything about...so I came here to find out what it was about.....and somehow that means I'm not doing my research?

What?
Nevuk
11/08/08, 09:03 AM
The fairness doctrine doesn't seem like a horrible idea to me, personally. But media communications isn't my forte at all.
mattybobviously
11/08/08, 09:08 AM
It just seems impractical to me. There are steps we could take to improve "fairness", especially in elections, but it just doesn't seem reasonable.
Adeniz19
11/08/08, 09:55 AM
You obviously didn't do a thorough job researching it. The fairness doctrine says every station must provide equal time to opposing viewpoints. Also, if someone makes a defaming remark to somebody on air, the station must give equal time (for free) to the person who was offended. This would cripple Fox News, MSNBC, and all talk radio. We also wouldn't see debates as they would violate the equal time rule. Conservatives oppose it because it isn't democratic, democrats (generally) endorse it because talk radio (sans Air America) is overwhelming dominated by conservatives. And even at that, the majority of democrats still oppose it, because the fairness doctrine is bad for business, and american politics.

You should do a better job researching something before you try to defend it. It's been critiqued a bunch of times on here already.You need to stop being a jackass to everyone asking a question. He obviously wasn't taking a strong stance one way or another.
saysmydoctor
11/08/08, 09:55 AM
You obviously didn't do a thorough job researching it. The fairness doctrine says every station must provide equal time to opposing viewpoints. Also, if someone makes a defaming remark to somebody on air, the station must give equal time (for free) to the person who was offended. This would cripple Fox News, MSNBC, and all talk radio. We also wouldn't see debates as they would violate the equal time rule. Conservatives oppose it because it isn't democratic, democrats (generally) endorse it because talk radio (sans Air America) is overwhelming dominated by conservatives. And even at that, the majority of democrats still oppose it, because the fairness doctrine is bad for business, and american politics.

You should do a better job researching something before you try to defend it. It's been critiqued a bunch of times on here already.
Did you read--she isn't defending it, she is curious as to what it was. Either start reading threads or bounce to another forum.
xshady121
11/08/08, 02:44 PM
when I looked over it on Wikipedia..it didn't seem like a bad idea.

Why are certain groups of people terrified of it?


Your first problem was reading that article on wikipedia. It does a shitty job of describing the fairness doctrine. And the way you worded it made it sound like you were defending it.
writeacliche
11/09/08, 07:44 AM
Your first problem was reading that article on wikipedia. It does a shitty job of describing the fairness doctrine. And the way you worded it made it sound like you were defending it.
Holy shit, forget my question--you're a dick.

And no my "first problem" was not wikipedia. How the fuck would I know it did a shitty job if I HAD NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS. Second, if you can't read and comprehend then that ISN'T my problem. Third: I obviously did NOT get enough info from Wikipedia, that is why I came here! And last, and most ironic, what you said in your original post isn't any different than what is on Wikipedia as it is.

It's obvious you're a bit of a prick from the way people are treating you. I'll get my question answered from someone else.
xshady121
11/09/08, 08:34 AM
Holy shit, forget my question--you're a dick.

And no my "first problem" was not wikipedia. How the fuck would I know it did a shitty job if I HAD NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS. Second, if you can't read and comprehend then that ISN'T my problem. Third: I obviously did NOT get enough info from Wikipedia, that is why I came here! And last, and most ironic, what you said in your original post isn't any different than what is on Wikipedia as it is.

It's obvious you're a bit of a prick from the way people are treating you. I'll get my question answered from someone else.

No, people treat me like I'm a prick because apparently "conservative" and "prick" are interchangeable around these parts. However, regardless of what you may think of me, I answered your question pretty thoroughly, at least thoroughly enough for an AbsolutePunk post.

You're welcome.
ActionActionFan
11/09/08, 08:43 AM
It's a terrible idea. Talk radio would be ruined.
Burn That Shit
11/09/08, 08:44 AM
It's a bad idea lol, no way around it.
writeacliche
11/09/08, 01:54 PM
No, people treat me like I'm a prick because apparently "conservative" and "prick" are interchangeable around these parts. However, regardless of what you may think of me, I answered your question pretty thoroughly, at least thoroughly enough for an AbsolutePunk post.

You're welcome.

I'm not thankful. You did nothing but regurgitate what Wikipedia had said but with an air of douchebaggery.

No sir. I could care less if you're conservative or not. If you're an asshole, you're an asshole.

The fact of the matter is you could have said: "Hey dude, Wikipedia didn't do a good job. Here's what I know: ____________" But you came in, waved your dick around, and made assumptions.

This thread can be closed whenever a mod gets the chance.
Justin_stacy
11/10/08, 08:10 AM
Federally mandated censorship and suppression of free speech.....oh' boy let the 'healing process' begin.
Broken Parachute
11/10/08, 08:10 AM
I don't understand how anyone can support it.
PlacesToGo
11/10/08, 08:15 AM
Economic conservative = No Problem

Social conservative = You are rightly labelled a douchebag.

economic conservatives are just as big douche bags as social conservative, they just read adam smith and take it as the bible.
alice+interiors
11/10/08, 09:04 AM
I feel that as a theory it makes sense.. but it's just impractical. Similar to communism, in that sense.
Justin_stacy
11/10/08, 11:10 AM
Obama does not support this.

Supposedly, although he hasn't spoken out strong enough on such an un-American mandate.
x togepi x
11/10/08, 11:22 AM
Supposedly, although he hasn't spoken out strong enough on such an un-American mandate.

why speak out on something that will never pass? there's no demand for it, other than a few liberals who don't know anything about anything.
Justin_stacy
11/10/08, 11:22 AM
He isn't going to bring it in.

Its not up to him. The detestable ego-maniac Chuck Schumer of NY has already said he plans on raising the issue. Obama's job, as leader of his party, is shut this fuck-wad up and demand that his part not act on such a devisive act of censorship.
x togepi x
11/10/08, 11:32 AM
it still wouldn't pass. hopefully the republicans would have enough votes against it to filibuster, especially since a few democrats would probably switch sides for it.
jagermeister
11/10/08, 11:51 AM
I barely read what its about but I gather that since the FCC wants broadcasters to show controversial things this could lead to them showing things conservatives may not like...such as abortion, gay marriage, and dancing.
Broken Parachute
11/10/08, 12:48 PM
Its not up to him. The detestable ego-maniac Chuck Schumer of NY has already said he plans on raising the issue. Obama's job, as leader of his party, is shut this fuck-wad up and demand that his part not act on such a devisive act of censorship.Now that Eliot Spitzer is gone, there is no politician in New York that I despise more than Chuck Schumer.
xshady121
11/10/08, 09:00 PM
Now that Eliot Spitzer is gone, there is no politician in New York that I despise more than Chuck Schumer.

Schumer is horrible. He does nothing for New York and is more concerned with his public appearance. Everytime something goes down on the hill he's the first senator you see give a comment. Attention Whore.
xshady121
11/10/08, 09:01 PM
Its not up to him. The detestable ego-maniac Chuck Schumer of NY has already said he plans on raising the issue. Obama's job, as leader of his party, is shut this fuck-wad up and demand that his part not act on such a devisive act of censorship.

If Obama manages to shut up Schumer I might actually start to like him.