Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: What do u think about the Fairness Doctrine?
madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 11/08/08 08:20 PM
Would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be held accountable under a fairness doctrine? I consider Jon Stewart entertainment like Oprah is entertainment. So, Oprah and Jon Stewart are entertainment shows and not media new per se? Well then are Rush, and Hannity (Alan Colmes has a show as well) and all of the other shows on radio. If we are going to say that the litmus test should apply only to "news" shows then fine--no worries but if entertainment is exempt then the Fairness Doctrine cannot touch shows like Larry Elder, or Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity or the like. None of those folks are "press" in the traditional sense. The aforementioned shows are entertainment and while I don't listen to Rush or Hannity myself, I support their right to voice whatever it is their listeners are willing to pay for via sponsorship just like I do any and all liberal shows. If people don't want to support liberal talk-entertainment then maybe the product they are selling is not something people are interested in buying. If that's the case then, Oh well--that's life. "I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I'm the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who's usually smiling because it's TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event. Besides, why shouldn't I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I'm fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I've ever worked." --SUSAN ESTRICH -Drew The right-wingers don't look at them as entertainment. I'm not saying if I'm for or against the Fairness Doctrine. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Well, if the right-wing get think of them as news then that is an issue for the right wing--but that does not mean that it should be banned. My issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that I want free speech to be preserved for both the right and the left!! -Drew isnt that what the fairness doctrine is all about?

Quikstepper Joined Mon 04/28/08 Posts: 2998	Sat 11/08/08 08:28 PM
tell both sides of the story?? Fox and NPR and MSNBC would be ruined fox was fair throughout the whole campaign. yeah completely ignore my comment on msnbc being fair. that channel was anything but. Fox is the worst one. This is why you have no crediblity...your comment is not based in facts but your own partisan outlook. It's a fact that FOX was the most fair in news reporting & CNN & especially MSNBC were the worst. But that's not the issue...they want to force the radio stations ONLY to have libs on in spite of the fact that libs do so poorly on the FREE air waves. If they want the "Fairness" Doctrine they should start with MSNBC & the View. Throw OPRAH in the mix & we might have something there.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 11/08/08 08:32 PM
tell both sides of the story?? Fox and NPR and MSNBC would be ruined fox was fair throughout the whole campaign. yeah completely ignore my comment on msnbc being fair. that channel was anything but. Fox is the worst one. This is why you have no crediblity...your comment is not based in facts but your own partisan outlook. It's a fact that FOX was the most fair in news reporting & CNN & especially MSNBC were the worst. But that's not the issue...they want to force the radio stations ONLY to have libs on in spite of the fact that libs do so poorly on the FREE air waves. If they want the "Fairness" Doctrine they should start with MSNBC & the View. Throw OPRAH in the mix & we might have something there. talk about credabity............ a few minuts of googling will confirm fox news is the most biased network out there.

Drew07_2 Joined Thu 09/20/07 Posts: 716	Sat 11/08/08 08:32 PM
Would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be held accountable under a fairness doctrine? I consider Jon Stewart entertainment like Oprah is entertainment. So, Oprah and Jon Stewart are entertainment shows and not media new per se? Well then are Rush, and Hannity (Alan Colmes has a show as well) and all of the other shows on radio. If we are going to say that the litmus test should apply only to "news" shows then fine--no worries but if entertainment is exempt then the Fairness Doctrine cannot touch shows like Larry Elder, or Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity or the like. None of those folks are "press" in the traditional sense. The aforementioned shows are entertainment and while I don't listen to Rush or Hannity myself, I support their right to voice whatever it is their listeners are willing to pay for via sponsorship just like I do any and all liberal shows. If people don't want to support liberal talk-entertainment then maybe the product they are selling is not something people are interested in buying. If that's the case then, Oh well--that's life. "I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I'm the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who's usually smiling because it's TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event. Besides, why shouldn't I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I'm fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I've ever worked." --SUSAN ESTRICH -Drew The right-wingers don't look at them as entertainment. I'm not saying if I'm for or against the Fairness Doctrine. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Well, if the right-wing get think of them as news then that is an issue for the right wing--but that does not mean that it should be banned. My issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that I want free speech to be preserved for both the right and the left!! -Drew isnt that what the fairness doctrine is all about? No--the Fairness Doctrine seeks to "balance" out radio and TV to allow market demand to be altered. We don't need it anymore than we need to count the number of posts here to ensure that there are an equal number of right-wing/left-wing posts. I don't agree with you on much, or you with me but we both have a right (so long as we abide by the posted rules) to speak our minds. I don't think we should ever seek to quiet one segment of political thought simply because some don't like it. -Drew

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 11/08/08 08:36 PM
Would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be held accountable under a fairness doctrine? I consider Jon Stewart entertainment like Oprah is entertainment. So, Oprah and Jon Stewart are entertainment shows and not media new per se? Well then are Rush, and Hannity (Alan Colmes has a show as well) and all of the other shows on radio. If we are going to say that the litmus test should apply only to "news" shows then fine--no worries but if entertainment is exempt then the Fairness Doctrine cannot touch shows like Larry Elder, or Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity or the like. None of those folks are "press" in the traditional sense. The aforementioned shows are entertainment and while I don't listen to Rush or Hannity myself, I support their right to voice whatever it is their listeners are willing to pay for via sponsorship just like I do any and all liberal shows. If people don't want to support liberal talk-entertainment then maybe the product they are selling is not something people are interested in buying. If that's the case then, Oh well--that's life. "I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I'm the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who's usually smiling because it's TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event. Besides, why shouldn't I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I'm fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I've ever worked." --SUSAN ESTRICH -Drew The right-wingers don't look at them as entertainment. I'm not saying if I'm for or against the Fairness Doctrine. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Well, if the right-wing get think of them as news then that is an issue for the right wing--but that does not mean that it should be banned. My issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that I want free speech to be preserved for both the right and the left!! -Drew isnt that what the fairness doctrine is all about? No--the Fairness Doctrine seeks to "balance" out radio and TV to allow market demand to be altered. We don't need it anymore than we need to count the number of posts here to ensure that there are an equal number of right-wing/left-wing posts. I don't agree with you on much, or you with me but we both have a right (so long as we abide by the posted rules) to speak our minds. I don't think we should ever seek to quiet one segment of political thought simply because some don't like it. -Drew It demands that political thought be fair and ballanced. We havent been well served by the polarization of the media. We are at war with the left and the right with medias that serve to enable each side. I would be glad to have a fair and ballanced view of the news by all sides and let the facts speak for themselves. Each and every editorial should have both sides of the story, nothing radical about that.

noblenan Joined Sat 10/06/07 Posts: 935	Sat 11/08/08 08:44 PM
IMO People can choose to listen to Limbaugh, O'Reily, and Hannity (whoever he is) because they agree or disagree with their opinions just like they choose to watch ER instead of say, Boston Legal. And the network heads can choose to have these programs on their network because they agree with them, too. But the news, no matter what station it's on, should be an unbiased public service. Period! I agree with Quiet, it's all about the money! News... like history, is not unbiased. Sad, huh?

Quikstepper Joined Mon 04/28/08 Posts: 2998	Sat 11/08/08 08:46 PM
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! That's what I think about the whole subject... unless you want to throw in MSNBC, The View & OPRAH first.

quiet_2008 Joined Sat 08/30/08 Posts: 11138	Sat 11/08/08 08:48 PM
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! That's what I think about the whole subject... unless you want to throw in MSNBC, The View & OPRAH first. you didn't read the thread did you? we already talked about the difference between news and entertainment

Winx Joined Fri 08/31/07 Posts: 39051	Sat 11/08/08 08:50 PM Edited by Winx on Sat 11/08/08 08:50 PM
tell both sides of the story?? Fox and NPR and MSNBC would be ruined fox was fair throughout the whole campaign. yeah completely ignore my comment on msnbc being fair. that channel was anything but. Fox is the worst one. This is why you have no crediblity...your comment is not based in facts but your own partisan outlook. It's a fact that FOX was the most fair in news reporting & CNN & especially MSNBC were the worst. But that's not the issue...they want to force the radio stations ONLY to have libs on in spite of the fact that libs do so poorly on the FREE air waves. If they want the "Fairness" Doctrine they should start with MSNBC & the View. Throw OPRAH in the mix & we might have something there. My credibility?! It is a fact that Fox is not fair in news reporting. It leans extremely to the right. And then add a little spin to it.

tngxl65 Joined Sat 01/12/08 Posts: 6189	Sat 11/08/08 09:06 PM
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! That's what I think about the whole subject... unless you want to throw in MSNBC, The View & OPRAH first. This discussion was civil. Perhaps you could try being civil as well.

Drew07_2 Joined Thu 09/20/07 Posts: 716	Sat 11/08/08 09:08 PM
Would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be held accountable under a fairness doctrine? I consider Jon Stewart entertainment like Oprah is entertainment. So, Oprah and Jon Stewart are entertainment shows and not media new per se? Well then are Rush, and Hannity (Alan Colmes has a show as well) and all of the other shows on radio. If we are going to say that the litmus test should apply only to "news" shows then fine--no worries but if entertainment is exempt then the Fairness Doctrine cannot touch shows like Larry Elder, or Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity or the like. None of those folks are "press" in the traditional sense. The aforementioned shows are entertainment and while I don't listen to Rush or Hannity myself, I support their right to voice whatever it is their listeners are willing to pay for via sponsorship just like I do any and all liberal shows. If people don't want to support liberal talk-entertainment then maybe the product they are selling is not something people are interested in buying. If that's the case then, Oh well--that's life. "I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I'm the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who's usually smiling because it's TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event. Besides, why shouldn't I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I'm fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I've ever worked." --SUSAN ESTRICH -Drew The right-wingers don't look at them as entertainment. I'm not saying if I'm for or against the Fairness Doctrine. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Well, if the right-wing get think of them as news then that is an issue for the right wing--but that does not mean that it should be banned. My issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that I want free speech to be preserved for both the right and the left!! -Drew isnt that what the fairness doctrine is all about? No--the Fairness Doctrine seeks to "balance" out radio and TV to allow market demand to be altered. We don't need it anymore than we need to count the number of posts here to ensure that there are an equal number of right-wing/left-wing posts. I don't agree with you on much, or you with me but we both have a right (so long as we abide by the posted rules) to speak our minds. I don't think we should ever seek to quiet one segment of political thought simply because some don't like it. -Drew It demands that political thought be fair and ballanced. We havent been well served by the polarization of the media. We are at war with the left and the right with medias that serve to enable each side. I would be glad to have a fair and ballanced view of the news by all sides and let the facts speak for themselves. Each and every editorial should have both sides of the story, nothing radical about that. But Madison, the First Amendment to our Constitution does not guarantee the right to free speech so long as it is balanced. It does prohibit obvious things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater but as it relates to the expression of views (political and otherwise) there should be no limit on how those views are put forth. You have your views and there are a number of people with whom you agree. I have mine and there are people I am more inclined to agree with. The issue I have with the Fairness Doctrine is that it seeks to impose balance of thought. That is completely contrary to the idea of our Republic. As far as news reporting, I agree that we have not been served well but I think it is then incumbent upon us to avoid such news outlets. They are a business and if no one is watching or listening, they will eventually fail. But to allow the government to regulate the content of airwaves is beyond scary. People have to be allowed to sort out what is true and what is fantasy and what makes anyone think that Government involvement in this situation would lead to "more" fairness? Again, I want to make clear that while I don't agree with you on much of anything, your views should never be modified or altered to reflect equal time. I would fight (literally if needed) for your right to speak openly about anything you want to however many people you want. I value that freedom more than any other because once that freedom is compromised, it is only a matter of time before others meet the same fate. -Drew

Winx Joined Fri 08/31/07 Posts: 39051	Sat 11/08/08 09:11 PM
I see both sides of what everybody is saying. My concern is this: The news is supposed to be informing us about what is going on around us. It's like it's educating us. I want my education to be based on facts. I also see the free speech side.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 11/08/08 09:18 PM
Would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be held accountable under a fairness doctrine? I consider Jon Stewart entertainment like Oprah is entertainment. So, Oprah and Jon Stewart are entertainment shows and not media new per se? Well then are Rush, and Hannity (Alan Colmes has a show as well) and all of the other shows on radio. If we are going to say that the litmus test should apply only to "news" shows then fine--no worries but if entertainment is exempt then the Fairness Doctrine cannot touch shows like Larry Elder, or Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity or the like. None of those folks are "press" in the traditional sense. The aforementioned shows are entertainment and while I don't listen to Rush or Hannity myself, I support their right to voice whatever it is their listeners are willing to pay for via sponsorship just like I do any and all liberal shows. If people don't want to support liberal talk-entertainment then maybe the product they are selling is not something people are interested in buying. If that's the case then, Oh well--that's life. "I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I'm the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who's usually smiling because it's TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event. Besides, why shouldn't I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I'm fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I've ever worked." --SUSAN ESTRICH -Drew The right-wingers don't look at them as entertainment. I'm not saying if I'm for or against the Fairness Doctrine. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Well, if the right-wing get think of them as news then that is an issue for the right wing--but that does not mean that it should be banned. My issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that I want free speech to be preserved for both the right and the left!! -Drew isnt that what the fairness doctrine is all about? No--the Fairness Doctrine seeks to "balance" out radio and TV to allow market demand to be altered. We don't need it anymore than we need to count the number of posts here to ensure that there are an equal number of right-wing/left-wing posts. I don't agree with you on much, or you with me but we both have a right (so long as we abide by the posted rules) to speak our minds. I don't think we should ever seek to quiet one segment of political thought simply because some don't like it. -Drew It demands that political thought be fair and ballanced. We havent been well served by the polarization of the media. We are at war with the left and the right with medias that serve to enable each side. I would be glad to have a fair and ballanced view of the news by all sides and let the facts speak for themselves. Each and every editorial should have both sides of the story, nothing radical about that. But Madison, the First Amendment to our Constitution does not guarantee the right to free speech so long as it is balanced. It does prohibit obvious things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater but as it relates to the expression of views (political and otherwise) there should be no limit on how those views are put forth. You have your views and there are a number of people with whom you agree. I have mine and there are people I am more inclined to agree with. The issue I have with the Fairness Doctrine is that it seeks to impose balance of thought. That is completely contrary to the idea of our Republic. As far as news reporting, I agree that we have not been served well but I think it is then incumbent upon us to avoid such news outlets. They are a business and if no one is watching or listening, they will eventually fail. But to allow the government to regulate the content of airwaves is beyond scary. People have to be allowed to sort out what is true and what is fantasy and what makes anyone think that Government involvement in this situation would lead to "more" fairness? Again, I want to make clear that while I don't agree with you on much of anything, your views should never be modified or altered to reflect equal time. I would fight (literally if needed) for your right to speak openly about anything you want to however many people you want. I value that freedom more than any other because once that freedom is compromised, it is only a matter of time before others meet the same fate. -Drew Its not about free speach its about the media conglomerates manipulateing and brain washing. I am not a media or news organization and neither are you.

tngxl65 Joined Sat 01/12/08 Posts: 6189	Sat 11/08/08 09:19 PM
I see both sides of what everybody is saying. My concern is this: The news is supposed to be informing us about what is going on around us. It's like it's educating us. I want my education to be based on facts. I also see the free speech side. And I understand what you're saying. But the reality is that the news is reported by people. And those people have a bias. No matter how 'fair' they try to be (and they often make no effort to be fair), their perception of 'fair' is colored by their biases. To try to regulate 'fairness' is impossible because there's no real way to define it. Is Limbaugh news or entertainment? I think he's entertainment. Some think he's news. As long as the airwaves are truly available to all then leave it to the public to decide what they want to listen to.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Sat 11/08/08 09:28 PM
The big problem is that the media consolidations have left you with few choices and as time goes on there will be less choices, eventualy almost all the news will come from the same sources, its practicly like that now with radio, tv and newspapers all being owned by 6 large corperations. and an FYI none of them pretend to be liberal being the nature of the owners. realy just google in WHO OWNS THE MEDIA you will be astounded.

Winx Joined Fri 08/31/07 Posts: 39051	Sat 11/08/08 09:37 PM
I see both sides of what everybody is saying. My concern is this: The news is supposed to be informing us about what is going on around us. It's like it's educating us. I want my education to be based on facts. I also see the free speech side. And I understand what you're saying. But the reality is that the news is reported by people. And those people have a bias. No matter how 'fair' they try to be (and they often make no effort to be fair), their perception of 'fair' is colored by their biases. To try to regulate 'fairness' is impossible because there's no real way to define it. Is Limbaugh news or entertainment? I think he's entertainment. Some think he's news. As long as the airwaves are truly available to all then leave it to the public to decide what they want to listen to. Yes, you are correct. People can be colored by their biases. I wish they tried harder though. Like teachers can't influence children on politics when they teach it. They just say the facts. I think Rush is entertainment too. But..I do know that people take him as gospel. That scares me. Too often I've seen people on here (and tonight) that still think that Obama is Muslim and they get it from right wing news. That is just wrong!!

tngxl65 Joined Sat 01/12/08 Posts: 6189	Sat 11/08/08 09:38 PM Edited by tngxl65 on Sat 11/08/08 09:39 PM
The big problem is that the media consolidations have left you with few choices and as time goes on there will be less choices, eventualy almost all the news will come from the same sources, its practicly like that now with radio, tv and newspapers all being owned by 6 large corperations. and an FYI none of them pretend to be liberal being the nature of the owners. realy just google in WHO OWNS THE MEDIA you will be astounded. It might persuade me a bit if I knew of one case where a liberal talk show had been kept off the air. The truth is that most liberal talk shows fail due to lack of interest. CNN has had no problem staying on the air and it is generally considered liberal, although I agree it is moderate compared to Fox News. I still believe that it's about business. If liberal talk was popular, then it would be financially attractive and it would be aired. Liberals have the Colbert Report and the Daly Show. I realize neither are news, but still, if there were a conservative 'barrier', then those shows wouldn't be able to get on the air.

quiet_2008 Joined Sat 08/30/08 Posts: 11138	Sat 11/08/08 09:40 PM
it's all about profit margin the bias will be dictated by the audience. Fox presents it's news to keep the most conservatives watching. If the bulge in the curve moves left so will Fox

tngxl65 Joined Sat 01/12/08 Posts: 6189	Sat 11/08/08 09:43 PM
Too often I've seen people on here (and tonight) that still think that Obama is Muslim and they get it from right wing news. That is just wrong!! You're not likely to change that kind of ignorance. They don't learn it from FOX. They learn it from home and the ignorance they grow up around.

Quikstepper Joined Mon 04/28/08 Posts: 2998	Sat 11/08/08 09:50 PM
Too often I've seen people on here (and tonight) that still think that Obama is Muslim and they get it from right wing news. That is just wrong!! You're not likely to change that kind of ignorance. They don't learn it from FOX. They learn it from home and the ignorance they grow up around. These sort of comments are what's so ridiculous about having any discussion...all common sense goes right out the window until something happens. And you wonder why I get sarcastic??? When LIBS can answer questions without resorting to the namecalling then maybe we can do more than take sarcastic swipes at the dumb things said. Maybe you should take your own advice there kido.