General Discussion

anoNY42

(670 posts)

59. Wait

Reply to Rex (Reply #53)

Fri Jul 29, 2016, 11:23 AM

Jul 2016

so you want an end to editorializing, not just a fairness rule?

Do you want this extended to non-broadcast sources?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

152 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bring back the fairness doctrine [View all] SheriffBob Jul 2016 OP

I said it before: Ugh, not this again anoNY42 Jul 2016 #1

Yeah, better to let a corporation or billionaire decide what gets heard. seabeckind Jul 2016 #4

Nice comeback anoNY42 Jul 2016 #7

Where are you people getting this nonsense? ZX86 Jul 2016 #115

YOU PEOPLE Skittles Aug 2016 #122

Rachel's show is commentary, not news. mahina Aug 2016 #127

Ok, and what is talk radio? anoNY42 Aug 2016 #130

Were you ms liberty Jul 2016 #6

Then educate me on what effect the "Fairness" doctrine had, old timer! anoNY42 Jul 2016 #8

Emily Litella! independentpiney Jul 2016 #100

My favorite Emily Littela was Yupster Jul 2016 #118

I was melm00se Jul 2016 #15

News at the local level continues to be unremarkable davekriss Jul 2016 #34

Well yeah, but that won't stop a great narrative! Rex Jul 2016 #95

Uniformed answer FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #18

Ironic that you call me "uninformed" anoNY42 Jul 2016 #22

That is actually a gray zone. The FCC is involved in some aspects of Cable regulation still_one Jul 2016 #90

Once again you switch back to broadcasting. anoNY42 Jul 2016 #93

Ironic people who attempt to elude they are True Democrats advocate agasinst the Fairness Doctrine FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #108

Proves how insidious and effective the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine was. ZX86 Jul 2016 #109

Love those RIGHT WING Talking Points FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #110

it has been happening more and more lately Skittles Aug 2016 #123

Exactly. Some tend to forget that its the publics airwaves. There is a reason why still_one Jul 2016 #82

Nobody told us how long to speak when I was in radio Tsiyu Jul 2016 #23

How about this one anoNY42 Jul 2016 #28

You are entitled to your opinion Tsiyu Jul 2016 #37

You are looking to go back to some imagined golden age anoNY42 Jul 2016 #41

You seem to know nothing about history, check out Hearst vs Pulitzer and get back with us. Rex Jul 2016 #53

Wait anoNY42 Jul 2016 #59

I want an end to embellishing. Rex Jul 2016 #62

Are you fucking kidding me? Tsiyu Jul 2016 #67

Ok anoNY42 Jul 2016 #69

It is some kid at work wasting the bosses dime by screwing with us here on DU. Rex Jul 2016 #72

Indeed Tsiyu Jul 2016 #88

We will be lucky to make it another 100 years with this batch. Rex Jul 2016 #92

Why the generation bashing? Turin_C3PO Jul 2016 #104

The airwaves are owned by the public, and the Fairness Doctrine is to still_one Jul 2016 #73

Ok, so you are talking about broadcast anoNY42 Jul 2016 #78

First of all that isn't quite accurate. There are plenty of people who do not want to pay still_one Jul 2016 #94

Requiring speech that the speaker does not want to make anoNY42 Jul 2016 #96

It does not require having a speaker who does not agree to state that position. They provide time f still_one Jul 2016 #97

That's not really what I mean anoNY42 Jul 2016 #99

Are you kidding me? I would GLADLY put up with conservative news here on DU AgadorSparticus Jul 2016 #116

Read the link. The government does not decide. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2016 #128

I posted on the link when he originally posted his "solution" anoNY42 Aug 2016 #129

Mine was an honest question. The fairness doctrine Agnosticsherbet Aug 2016 #135

Perhaps it made sense when there were 4 channels Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #2

There were opinion shows on those 4 channels Warpy Aug 2016 #126

Now that's a progressive idea... ileus Jul 2016 #3

This is a private forum. seabeckind Jul 2016 #5

So is CNN. anoNY42 Jul 2016 #9

Seems public to me MichMan Jul 2016 #10

They already post here. SecularMotion Jul 2016 #11

sure SheriffBob Jul 2016 #13

lulz Rex Jul 2016 #65

Post hoc ergo propter hoc Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #12

It was a lot more problematic than people's selective memories seem to recall right now Recursion Jul 2016 #14

That would solve NOTHING Orangepeel Jul 2016 #16

Yup. As it is they give too much fairness to climate change deniers, as just one example. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #20

If not the Fairness Doctrine, why not the "Accuracy in Reporting" doctrine. Nitram Jul 2016 #17

Much better. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #19

No. Terrible idea. Who decides what is true and what is a lie? Nye Bevan Jul 2016 #25

Yeah that would work too. Just something, anything to hold news reporters responsible Rex Jul 2016 #30

So if the government dislikes your reporting, you can be branded an Official Liar by the State tritsofme Jul 2016 #112

No, evidence that would hold up in court would be required for the government, or concerned Nitram Aug 2016 #120

Your proposal is not compatible with the First Amendment, not even close. tritsofme Aug 2016 #121

Then I guess we're stuck with the right wing media and the... Nitram Aug 2016 #124

Yes, we cannot ban media and speech we dislike. That's part of the deal for living in America. tritsofme Aug 2016 #152

Great idea! GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #131

Gulf, that's an interesting distortion of my suggestion. You might find employment with one of... Nitram Aug 2016 #132

Hyperbole no doubt GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #139

Yes, I'll admit to some hyperbole there. Nitram Aug 2016 #141

Yep GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #143

I tend to employ snark to avoid being angry. Nitram Aug 2016 #145

Once again this foolish call raises its head melm00se Jul 2016 #21

Yeah it really sucked turning on your local radio station Tsiyu Jul 2016 #27

Pffft anoNY42 Jul 2016 #32

"Pushing an abridgement of the first amendment?" Nitram Aug 2016 #134

Um, not quite. The suggestion that there were only a limited number of broadcasters becasue Nitram Aug 2016 #133

I would have zero opposition melm00se Aug 2016 #150

Wow, you are a great deal more powerful than I realized! Nitram Aug 2016 #151

No (nt) bigwillq Jul 2016 #24

If the only way to get news was on 3 over-the-air channels, Nye Bevan Jul 2016 #26

And you don't use a radio so no one uses a radio? Tsiyu Jul 2016 #31

Not this anoNY42 Jul 2016 #33

Abridge what? You have to be joking. Rex Jul 2016 #35

Are you in favor of the "fairness" doctrine, anoNY42 Jul 2016 #39

I am talking about keeping reporters honest, what are you talking about? Rex Jul 2016 #40

If you are not talking about the actual "fairness" doctrine anoNY42 Jul 2016 #44

Why are you trying to censor me? Rex Jul 2016 #50

Cute anoNY42 Jul 2016 #55

No you are just joking around, I get it. Rex Jul 2016 #58

Ok, you may not be a lawyer anoNY42 Jul 2016 #60

Lol another 'expert' sitting at work jacking around on the bosses time. Rex Jul 2016 #63

Once again anoNY42 Jul 2016 #66

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #70

No, anon, I know that's a convenient position for you, but it is false. Nitram Aug 2016 #136

My most convenient position anoNY42 Aug 2016 #138

Stick to that and a reasoned argument and I will enjoy, and perhaps learn from, the discussion. Nitram Aug 2016 #140

The reasons are simple anoNY42 Aug 2016 #142

Good points re the fairness doctrine. Nitram Aug 2016 #144

Lies anoNY42 Aug 2016 #146

Good point. In fact, that's already their favorite tactic (along with "some people say") Nitram Aug 2016 #148

Some kids have no clue Tsiyu Jul 2016 #46

Well I guess we are getting paid back for calling our elders old and out of touch when we were young Rex Jul 2016 #49

No there is not Tsiyu Jul 2016 #77

They grew up with no need for critical thinking, everything was handed to them on a silver platter. Rex Jul 2016 #79

And how would the Fairness Doctine have done that? WillowTree Jul 2016 #102

They are not serious, reading their posts I realize they have no clue or are just joking around. Rex Jul 2016 #47

I see many new monikers Tsiyu Jul 2016 #52

The folly of youth. Rex Jul 2016 #56

Sad to see the younger folks vote no. Rex Jul 2016 #29

Broadcast news anoNY42 Jul 2016 #36

It will keep people like Hannity in check and hold them responsible when they incite violence on air Rex Jul 2016 #38

Hannity already would be accountable anoNY42 Jul 2016 #42

Well he did incite violence and so did Foxnews and nothing happened to them. Rex Jul 2016 #43

When? Why were the police not called? nt anoNY42 Jul 2016 #45

When we had the Bundy standoff. Rex Jul 2016 #48

I found these anoNY42 Jul 2016 #51

He was actually calling for the Bundy family to take action. Rex Jul 2016 #54

I can't find it anoNY42 Jul 2016 #57

Shouldn't you be working? Rex Jul 2016 #61

You cannot find anything where Hannity actually calls for violence, can you? anoNY42 Jul 2016 #64

No I think you should get back to work and stop stealing from your company. Rex Jul 2016 #68

Good god anoNY42 Jul 2016 #71

No you are here just wasting time on your bosses dime. Rex Jul 2016 #74

I give up anoNY42 Jul 2016 #75

Sure ya would, get back to work kid. Rex Jul 2016 #76

Waaaa! anoNY42 Jul 2016 #80

And you are immoral for stealing from the company you work for. Rex Jul 2016 #81

Back up your argument with some links. nt anoNY42 Jul 2016 #83

Why would I care what some immoral person like you wants? Rex Jul 2016 #84

Childish anoNY42 Jul 2016 #85

Right, nice try. Rex Jul 2016 #86

Just let me know about Hannity when you can anoNY42 Jul 2016 #87

Why? You don't care about the truth. Rex Jul 2016 #89

Hannity's guests often incite racism SheriffBob Jul 2016 #107

And what happens when we run a segment on climate change, or vaccines? Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #103

You realize cable TV wouldn't be covered by the "fairness doctrine", right? n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2016 #91

I think it's fairly obvious that most people don't realize that. n/t Captain Stern Jul 2016 #106

Obvious like a flashing neon sign. nt cherokeeprogressive Aug 2016 #147

No thank you. Throd Jul 2016 #98

An abridgment to the first amendment....plain and simple.nt clarice Jul 2016 #101

Fairness a Doctrine didn't require equal time. NYC Liberal Jul 2016 #105

No thanks. I have zero interest in allowing government any input in the editorial decisions of media tritsofme Jul 2016 #111

The Fairness Doctrine did not allow input in editorial decisions. ZX86 Jul 2016 #113

The public airwaves are like a public park. ZX86 Jul 2016 #114

HELL YEAAAA! We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. AgadorSparticus Jul 2016 #117

Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #119

I voted "maybe". Perhaps because my media diet is pretty much on a Fairness Doctrine anyway. mwooldri Aug 2016 #125

Me, too, mwooldri, but conservatives have been trying to defund and discredit many of my Nitram Aug 2016 #137

Here's a better approach than the Fariress Doctrine. Nitram Aug 2016 #149