100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What do u think about the Fairness Doctrine? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think the Fairness Doctrine is something the Government will use to detour the American people away from what is really going on. If the media can't lean to the right and push a few buttons, or lean to the left to push a few buttons, we will always be looking straight down center field. Never knowing who's on first, or more importantly who is on third and about to score. What's on second. If your looking down center field, second is in plain sight. So, Obama here shortly I suppose. No, Obama is on first, what's on second, I don't know who's on third. I bet Dustin Hoffman was your favorite in Rain Man!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the Fairness Doctrine is something the Government will use to detour the American people away from what is really going on. If the media can't lean to the right and push a few buttons, or lean to the left to push a few buttons, we will always be looking straight down center field. Never knowing who's on first, or more importantly who is on third and about to score. What's on second. If your looking down center field, second is in plain sight. So, Obama here shortly I suppose. No, Obama is on first, what's on second, I don't know who's on third. I bet Dustin Hoffman was your favorite in Rain Man!
I was doing a form of Abbott and Costello. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? It is a slippery slope - the unfair vs. the unconstitutional. Winx--but news is shaped by the world-view held by those reporting it. Generally there is an element of truth in news reporting but we love the headlines and the more sensational a story, the more it is read. One of my local three news stations is a station called KOMO 4. KOMO has a "most read" section on their news site that lists the popularity of the stories--the most read. What is is amazing to me is that it is generally the most depraved or sick story that is number one. A while back a woman threw boiling water on her boyfriend causing him massive and disturbing burns. It was news (I suppose) but it was the number one story for two days. There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time and yet this domestic confrontation was the leader. That seems to be the mentality of my local area viewers. Right or wrong, they gravitate toward that stuff. This is directly related to the Fairness Doctrine in that we would then have to set up a "balanced" committee to determine if the slant given the news was indeed balanced. That committee would then be maligned by both left and right alike as playing favorites and not reporting fairly. It would never end. In an age of instant news and with the Internet so full of news, people should be able to sift through the coal to find the diamond. People are on TV all the time trying to tell us what to buy, how to vote, at what rate to re-fi our homes. We have to filter all of that, not just the news. I will therefore stand by my original post argument that government controlled news (or a doctrine that forces things to be balanced) is highly unconstitutional in that protected speech is not just the stuff you and I agree with. Should the news be accurate? Yes, but if it's not, we the viewers need to boycott it and let the chips fall where they may. --Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cool thread. Of the 3 major major cable "news" outlets I believe CNN spends the most time reporting "news" while Fox and MSNBC are primarily outlets of right and left commentary respectively. In prime time, while I vehemently disagree with Hannity and usually with O'Reilly, I do see them having guests with opposing views. Hell, Hannity's sidekick Clomes is a "LIB" as quickie would label him. As for MSNBC, I am politically aligned with their editorial viewpoint, but I believe they are less balanced than Fox. I love Keith Olberman, but there's hardly ever a dissenting view on his show. Pat Buchanan offers a conservative viewpoint on MSNBC, but aside from he and Joe Scarborough, there's little from the right on MSNBC.
As for the "fairness doctrine," it absolutely should be a requirement of reporting news, but not commenting on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cool thread. Of the 3 major major cable "news" outlets I believe CNN spends the most time reporting "news" while Fox and MSNBC are primarily outlets of right and left commentary respectively. In prime time, while I vehemently disagree with Hannity and usually with O'Reilly, I do see them having guests with opposing views. Hell, Hannity's sidekick Clomes is a "LIB" as quickie would label him. As for MSNBC, I am politically aligned with their editorial viewpoint, but I believe they are less balanced than Fox. I love Keith Olberman, but there's hardly ever a dissenting view on his show. Pat Buchanan offers a conservative viewpoint on MSNBC, but aside from he and Joe Scarborough, there's little from the right on MSNBC. As for the "fairness doctrine," it absolutely should be a requirement of reporting news, but not commenting on it. Drew, Due to people not reading the first few pages of a thread and jumping to the end, you are probably going to have to repeat yourself over and over and try to get your point across over and over as new people join the conversation at the most recent page. Someone else did this to me on another thread. Tina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's your point? Should my opinion have been different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's your point? Should my opinion have been different? No, it would just be nice sometimes to all of those who have been following this conversation from the beginning if they didnt have to backtrack every time a person doesnt want to go back and read. No offense. Just a statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read most of the thread and then wrote my opinion. I really didn't focus on "Drew's" particular positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from earlier today...Rush says... only liberals would think that “fairness” is something that can be implemented by government mandate. but that speaks to how they see the world. This country was founded up on the idea that all men are free, and that all should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But rather than equality of opportunity, liberals are only interested in equality of outcome. Thus the Fairness Doctrine, which mandates “fairness” by forcing broadcasters to not select content based on what people actually want to see or hear (entertainment/informational value) but rather on ideological quotas. Thus affirmative action, which mandates “fairness” by forcing employers and universities to select applicants and employees based not on merit, ability and achievement but rather on racial/gender quotas. Thus welfare and wealth redistribution, which mandates “fairness” not by providing incentive for unsuccessful individuals to become successful but by punishing successful citizens for being too successful through the redistribution of their wealth to others. It’s how the liberal mind works. Rush is a joke, his opinion means nothing, besides we all know his judgement is clouded by drug use refute his words...not his actions... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the Fairness Doctrine is something the Government will use to detour the American people away from what is really going on. If the media can't lean to the right and push a few buttons, or lean to the left to push a few buttons, we will always be looking straight down center field. Never knowing who's on first, or more importantly who is on third and about to score. What's on second. If your looking down center field, second is in plain sight. So, Obama here shortly I suppose. No, Obama is on first, what's on second, I don't know who's on third. I bet Dustin Hoffman was your favorite in Rain Man!
I was doing a form of Abbott and Costello.
I know. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the Fairness Doctrine is something the Government will use to detour the American people away from what is really going on. If the media can't lean to the right and push a few buttons, or lean to the left to push a few buttons, we will always be looking straight down center field. Never knowing who's on first, or more importantly who is on third and about to score. What's on second. If your looking down center field, second is in plain sight. So, Obama here shortly I suppose. No, Obama is on first, what's on second, I don't know who's on third. I bet Dustin Hoffman was your favorite in Rain Man!
I was doing a form of Abbott and Costello.
I know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 There Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory but it is a bad idea in practice.It could stifle free speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory but it is a bad idea in practice.It could stifle free speech.
There's just no way to define 'fair'. And since there's nothing that keeps it from being 'fair', then I say let it alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory but it is a bad idea in practice.It could stifle free speech.
But the news isnt in the free speech biz, there in the delivery biz, its there job to deliver the news in a fair and just manner. What can go wrong if they we to show the other side of the story? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory but it is a bad idea in practice.It could stifle free speech.
But the news isnt in the free speech biz, there in the delivery biz, its there job to deliver the news in a fair and just manner. What can go wrong if they we to show the other side of the story? That's just it. Each side only sees the one side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory but it is a bad idea in practice.It could stifle free speech.
But the news isnt in the free speech biz, there in the delivery biz, its there job to deliver the news in a fair and just manner. What can go wrong if they we to show the other side of the story? The problem is that if the news is reported as straight news, with no political leaning then there, be definition cannot be another side to the story. If I am a news director and I report the quoted text below, what is the "other side"? "Good evening. Today, in downtown Shelton, WA, four armed men with ski masks and automatic weapons walked into a local church, killing nine people. Survivors reported hearing the men decrying the "West" before opening fire. More details will be made available as the investigation continues." What is the "other side"? If that is all that is known at the time the story is reported then it seems to me that the story is factually correct. The other issue here is that if every news channel reported identical news, there would be no difference in them. But each needs a share of viewers and each needs to create a trademark of sorts. My point here is that if news sticks to reporting facts then by definition there need not be another side. If however the news reports only part of a story or crafts a story to their own political view then you'd be correct in that a great deal was left out. So, we agree, Brandon, but again, if facts are reported then each news agency should be held accountable for those facts and the stories they report. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory but it is a bad idea in practice.It could stifle free speech.
But the news isnt in the free speech biz, there in the delivery biz, its there job to deliver the news in a fair and just manner. What can go wrong if they we to show the other side of the story? The Fairness Doctrine didnt work out when we had it( for a variety of reasons), so thats why we got rid of it.The best "fairness" is gonna get is the way we have it right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I can't for the life of me figure out what you're saying. Calling Obama a muslim IS ignorance. None of your post makes any sense in the context of this conversation. This has been a relatively civil conversation less your posts and a couple hateful ones. What advice should I be following? Maybe it's YOU who aren't reading what people are really saying... bringing up the whole muslim thing is not the message here. Your (and others) complete disregard for what people are really saying is what's not "civil," to coin your phrase. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sun 11/09/08 09:48 PM
|
|
All the silly talk about secret muslims (whatever that is) and "radical" college professors (that nobody cares about)are some of the main reasons the republicans got beaten so badly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I can't for the life of me figure out what you're saying. Calling Obama a muslim IS ignorance. None of your post makes any sense in the context of this conversation. This has been a relatively civil conversation less your posts and a couple hateful ones. What advice should I be following? Maybe it's YOU who aren't reading what people are really saying... bringing up the whole muslim thing is not the message here. Your (and others) complete disregard for what people are really saying is what's not "civil," to coin your phrase. You obviously don't read these threads. I already acknowledged confusing threads. I didn't bring up the muslim thing.. I responded to it. What's amazing is that I somehow think we're on the same side of this issue. Everyone else here has been very civil and we've all had a very good debate. No names were called and there were no personal attacks until you got here. |
|
|
|
|
