Says you! If you don't like what FOX has to say, then turn the channel. No one is making you watch that channel and last I checked, Fox had a number of liberals on-air. But even that is not the point. MSNBC, CNN and the like are fine with me because that is how they wish to operate. I don't watch any one channel exclusively and I never will.

Why should any station be accountable to you personally? Madison puts up an icon here with Bush's face transparently joined with Hitler's and he has a right to do so! I don't think he's right but I would be mortified to live in a country where he was not allowed to simply because someone felt it "unfair."

You have a choice when it comes to TV, Radio and the like. Find one you like and stop worrying about FOX.

By the way--when Opera refused to allow equal time for McCain/Palin, many of you here were supportive of her decision. So, under the Fairness Doctrine, would it be fair that she had Obama on for an hour and McCain on for a second hour? I don't think so at all. It's her show and she should be able to run it her way. My posts here are consistent with that so why the change now?

-Drew

I would think it is apparent I don't watch any news aside from public access from time to time, so I don't watch Fox, MSNBC, or any of the other top news organizations...and where did I say they should take me into account personally? This is why I don't post here often, you lot are good at one thing; putting words into a sentence where the words don't exist in the first place...

I keep saying this...

the only reason the News outlets exist for is to sell advertising. That is their business. They sell YOU the audience to their advertisers.

The advertisers are looking for a specific demographic to reach. The news station promises them that demographic so they adjust their programming to appeal to that demographic

They tell you what you want to hear so you keep watching the commercials

true

The fairness doctrine will help ease the polerization of this country. If both viewpoints are expressed in a fair manner people wont be dragged to extremes. Fox news is by far the worst offender enableing the right wing to create a base of ignorant fanatics. there was a study done about fox news and it turned out the more you watched fox news the less you actualy knew about the real world, especialy when it came to 911 and the wmds in iraq. i am off googling the link .......

My own take on this is that they sell sensationalistic crap and fear, both of which seem sell quite well. What they say doesn't have to be fair, if it were they wouldn't be able to dress it up as much!

The More you Watch, the Less You Know

Americans who watch Fox Cable News are more likely to hold at least one of three major misconceptions about the Iraq war, according to a major poll done by the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif. The misconceptions are that Saddam had anything to do with September 11; that the US has found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and that the Iraq War was generally supported by other countries besides the US.
Some 80% of respondents who said they mainly watched Fox News believed at least one of these three falsehoods. Likewise, 71% of those who mainly got their news from CBS believed at least one. (So much for the big supposed differences between Fox and the "mainstream" "liberal" press).

Only 23% of those who said they mainly got their news from National Public Radio and Public Television believed at least one of the three misperceptions. About 47% of those who depended mainly on newspapers did.

Of course, it is not just a matter of what the media were reporting. It is also an issue of how the audience responded. My guess is that the audience for NPR and PBS just tends to be highly educated and/or well off, and that what the statistic really tells us is that the US upper middle classes had a good idea of what was going on.


http://www.bayarea.com/mld/
mercurynews/news/special_packages/
iraq/6918170.htm.

NPR is the worst cause they don't sell advertising and have no excuse

I am one of the biggest proponents of free speech, and I agree that any regulation or law that takes away individuals right to freely express their opinions without slandering or committing libel is unconstitutional.

In a perfect world any corporation, media outlet, and news wielding individual would objectively report both sides of each issue allowing the viewers to decided for themselves what to believe. However, this world has never existed. Since Hamilton spoke through the "Gazette of the Unites States" and Jefferson through the "National Gazette", people (specifically powerful individuals) have tried to influence public opinion through the "news". Is this wrong? Is this a bad thing?

Perhaps not. Perhaps we should start taking more responsibility ourselves in finding out the truth behind the events and issues. We live in much different times from that of Hamilton and Jefferson or even the time of origin of the Fairness Doctrine. Between the internet, television, magazines, newspapers, radio, smoke signals, lights shaped like bats in the sky and even word of mouth, I believe that we have plenty of sources to figure it out for ourselves.

And you should know I am "liberal", so I understand your disappointment when you hear about how "FOX News" "accidently" labels Mark Foley as a Democrat. It is plain as day what they are doing. Is it unfair...yes. Unconstitutional, no. There is no way to prove that it wasn't a mistake. (Plus we have Jon Stewart...he'll clear that up.)

I realize I am rambling...What am I trying to say? It truly is a slippery slope when you let bureaucrats decide what is fair, true, and honest. These are all things that we must decipher for ourselves. I guess we just have to live by that old saying, "Don't believe everything you hear/read/see?

...and Ophra is not a news organization, she's a talk show. She chooses the content. Taking everything she says as gospel is no different than believing everything on Jerry Springer.
I'm sorry FearandLoathing for piggybacking that comment on yours!

Regarding what you said about Oprah. She is not a news show.
News programs should be giving us accurate information with no spin.

They do fundraisers like PBS.

They do show both sides.

They talk to people from all over the world.

I may be mistaken but I don't think even Obama supports the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

I remember the fairness doctrine it actualy made the news much more interesting.

Would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be held accountable under a fairness doctrine?

I consider Jon Stewart entertainment like Oprah is entertainment.

comedians of course not. We are talking about the news media. I can recall as a child watching the news ( dad had the tv at 6:00 pm) and t hey had a pooint counterpoint at the end of the news, it was the most interesting part of the program. With the consolidation of the news medias both printed and televised I think the time is right for the fairness doctrine. the once independent cable stations are under a corperate umbrella. If it were not for the internet a free press in america would be a joke.

They both won Peabody Awards which are given out annually to media sources and are highly prized in the world of journalism. Apparently, some people consider them news media...

"Daily Show's Jon Stewart Wins Top Journalism Award
Friday April 8, 2005
Jon Stewart, comedian and host of Comedy Central cable show ,The Daily Show, won a prestigious Peabody Award yesterday for his coverage of the 2004 presidential election.

The George Foster Peabody Awards are given annually by the University of Georgia Journalism & Mass Communications department for excellence in the electronic media. The awards are widely respected within the TV and radio industries as recognition of high-quality journalism.

Jon Stewart has famously given comedic voice to liberal frustration over Bush Administration missteps and hypocrisies, and today's conservative political climate, both on The Daily Show and in his bestselling book, "America - a Citizen's Guide to Democratic Inaction."

Said Stewart in reaction to this honor, "All of us at 'The Daily Show' very much appreciate the Peabody Committee's recognition of our work. Because this is the first time we've ever released a statement, we'd also like to, just for the hell of it, categorically deny all charges and say that we find them both scurrilous and without merit."

Despite being a comedian, Stewart is a leading liberal political voice in the US today. Tom Goldstein, a UC Berkeley communications professor told the New York Times, "Jon Stewart is an extraordinarily important phenomenon. The truth can be told in many ways---journalistically, through satire---and he does a briliant job of expressing the truth his way."

The George Foster Peabody Awards, better known as simply the Peabody Awards, are annual, international awards for excellence in radio and television broadcasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Award

and when you read the wording and language of the fairness doctrine...it affects broadcasters...i'm just saying it is a well known fact that unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) a large section of society gets their news from those two