Split Thread "Fairness doctrine" broadcasting

[Cobalt]

Let's see. Limbaugh clearly has no ethics, has been caught cheating, lying, breaking laws, and should, by the justice meted out to us not-rich people, be in jail for a long time for his oxycontin crime. Where is he? On the air, forgiven by the "law and order" lunatics he preaches to.

For one, careful with that massively wide brush you're using regarding his listeners. It's nice that you assume all his listeners are lunatics. Maybe, just maybe, that some of his listeners aren't crazy, but just moderate folks who find his show....jeez, what's the word here....entertaining?

It amazes me that some people seem to believe that a talk show host's job is to "preach" to people about issues and to skew facts. The reality is, the host's true job is to get on the air and hold listeners between segments, so they'll end up hearing advertising. The fact that a lot of them are conservative suggests that that's what people want to hear. (And what should be irrelevant is why they're listening.) If people wanted to hear liberal talk radio, there'd be more of it. Simple as that. They've not flourished as well as conservatives have in this arena. Despite the fact that there's plenty of other places to educate yourself on both sides of an issue.

Why isn't the internet being pushed for this?
<sarcasm>
I think DailyKos should have equal page space for opposing viewpoints. So should Drudge! FAIRNESS!
</sarcasm>

Now, you espouse that "liberal" types should abandon ethics, and lie, cheat, and engage in violations of the law, emulating Limbaugh? Really? Why? Do you want to drag liberals down to his level? Why do you want to turn liberals into liars and cheats? That's what it means, exactly what it means, to "build a stable of liberal Limbaughs".

Or, he meant successful radio hosts. Nah......

And that, then, would turn "news" into a cartoon farce, and we wouldn't have any news unless we watched the BBC (a conservative organization often tarred here as liberal) or the CBC. Is this the outcome you desire?

You mean people watch the BBC for something other than Top Gear?! I demand evidence!

If so, why?

Well if it would get us another Top Gear.....

Oh, and I forgot, where is the evidence that Obama is actively seeing a "fairness doctrine"? You know, the thing that Bull O'Really is spluttering insanely about...

I've seen that he doesn't want one, and I'd imagine because it's a stupid issue. He's a bright guy, he might realize it's an unnecessary endeavor to undertake.

 

[jj]

If it's Bill O'Reily (you made a couple of spelling mistakes there)

No, I didn't. And I don't participate in discussions with people like Bull O'Really, who routinely censor their opponents and lie about whatever situation is at hand.

Now where's his evidence that Obama is pushing a fairness doctrine? Or is he really that afraid for his job?

 

[tomwaits]

Well, for a long time, we had this "fairness doctrine", and, you know, the commies didn't win, the nazis didn't win, and we didn't have the obvious crazy-rightwing skew to the most popular news channels, either.
.

So if the commies/nazis don't "win", therefore the fairness doctrine is ok. If that wasn't your point, it was stupid to write this.

 

[jj]

So if the commies/nazis don't "win", therefore the fairness doctrine is ok. If that wasn't your point, it was stupid to write this.

Deal in suborned arguments based on illicit inferences much, Tom?

 

[Alex Libman]

Just like in the Soviet Union... Communist A vs Communist B, while the real opposition is crushed through censorship.

 

[dudalb]

I think we just have what is known as a "Non Sequitar" from our resident Anarchist.

 

[Alex Libman]

Anarcho-Capitalist. And just because you fail to understand the depth of something doesn't make it a non sequitur.

(Hint for the functionally illiterate: in the above analogy, liberals and conservatives are communists A and B.)

 

[gtc]

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did and you just did it again. Have you considered reading glasses?

And I don't participate in discussions with people like Bull O'Really, who routinely censor their opponents and lie about whatever situation is at hand.

That is, of course, your right.

Now where's his evidence that Obama is pushing a fairness doctrine?

How do you know he hasn't presented it on his show or site?

 

[tomwaits]

Deal in suborned arguments based on illicit inferences much, Tom?

I'll be honest, I don't know what "suborned" means. So I looked it up:

Subornation of perjury is a legal term describing the crime of persuading another to commit perjury.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suborned

Incited, usually by bribery, to commit perjury or other unlawful acts.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/s.html

So...what are you talking about?

 

[jj]

How do you know he hasn't presented it on his show or site?

I've seen the press release from the Obama administration that makes it seem pretty clear that Saint Bull of O'Really is blowing smoke. I've also seen St. Bull foaming at the mouth over the subject sometime last week. The joys of being in hotels and all that.

So, St. Bull is blowing smoke. O'Really is deserving of a level of contempt that Limbaugh has only partially earned, in my book. He's already lying through his teeth. In most other countries he'd be looking at "internal security" for his obvious attempts to incite revolt. Here, he's just a mean, nasty talking head who spews bile and venom, and opposes science at every opportunity.

 

[Merko]

Why indeed do most internet forums and games have some kind of chat filter?

I don't think that's true at all. I've never heard about a non-US forum that has this kind of silly wordlist censorship. I'm a member of one forum which is run in the US and has such a filter, but where most of the visitors are Europeans.. and newcomers continue to be perplexed or even outraged about it (not necessarily because they want to say f*** all the time, but because of the principle).

Now how many of these same places have similar filters for political content?

I think the explanation is very simple. People who are fixated with 'bad words' have a fixed list of such words. For example, I can't say f***, but it's perfectly fine to say 'engage in biologically reproductive activities'. Which certainly makes the filter very pointless. I don't think anybody has the same type of hangup when it comes to politics. Nobody would really be that much happier if we banned the words 'porkulus' or 'bushism'.

 

[Merko]

I think the Fairness doctrine is a failed approach to solve a real problem, though. It seems clear to me that there are a lot of Americans who have very partisan media as their primary sources of news, such as Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the right, or Colbert Report or The Daily Show on the left. I think that's a real problem because it's no doubt much of the explanation for the 'alternative reality' clashes which permeate US political debate even at the highest level.

Some people may question the parallel between Limbaugh (who is apparently serious) and Colbert (who is apparently joking), but I do think they fill a very similar function among many in their respective audience.

 

[Gangularis]

I greatly disagree that the main news source for the left is Colbert and Stewart.. A fair comparison would be Maddow, and Olbermann..

I think Colbert and Stewart are quite objective.. They take jabs at everyone.. neo-cons are just easier to pick on because of the overwhelming amount of political buffoonery that's come out of their party the past 8 years. Colbert and Stewart are pro-gay rights, and pro-choice, but I think it's more realist, than leftist, as far as they're concerned.

 

[dudalb]

Anarcho-Capitalist. And just because you fail to understand the depth of something doesn't make it a non sequitur.

(Hint for the functionally illiterate: in the above analogy, liberals and conservatives are communists A and B.)

Wow. What arrogance.
Ya gotta love all these John Galt wannabes.

 

[Merko]

I greatly disagree that the main news source for the left is Colbert and Stewart.. A fair comparison would be Maddow, and Olbermann..

I never said it was the main news source for the left in general. But for a sizable group, presumably among younger people, I believe it is true. But sure, add Olbermann, dunno about Maddow, haven't seen much of her yet.

I don't think Colbert and Stewart are balanced at all, btw. Yes, they joke about everybody, but the jokes are different.

 

[Gangularis]

I never said it was the main news source for the left in general.

It sure seems like you were saying that, here:

It seems clear to me that there are a lot of Americans who have very partisan media as their primary sources of news, such as Limbaugh or O'Reilly on the right, or Colbert Report or The Daily Show on the left.

Maddow has a very solid viewership.. She got her own show on msnbc because the ratings skyrocketed when she was the guest host of Countdown.

I don't think Colbert and Stewart are balanced at all, btw. Yes, they joke about everybody, but the jokes are different.

How are the jokes different? The jokes pertain to what can be made fun of about the situations..If it is idiotic, or absurd, you can rest assured they will go after it.....

I can tell that you're not a regular watcher of either.
They have made no soft hitting jokes when it came to ripping the hell out of Blagovich the past several months.. or even ripping on Burris in his seemingly ego maniacal inclinations. I've never seen much love for Nancy Pelosi, or Barney Frank, either..

 

[BeAChooser]

I believe the US is becoming more secular, and more progressive, by the day.. I think most people that voted for Obama, voted because they believed in his ideals, and his abilities - not just to throw the other guys out.

LOL! I think the problem is that due to the left wing bias of the mainstream media, most of those who voted for Obama don't really know Obama's leftist ideals and lack of abilities. If they did, perhaps they wouldn't have been so easily mesmerized.

And with regards to the US becoming more secular, that seems at odds with the effort by Obama the last two elections to *seem* religious. He openly bragged in 2004, when he ran for the US senate, that he attended Reverend Wright's sermons EVERY saturday. (Yet during this election he wanted to pretend like he hardly knew what Wright said at many of those sermons while still presenting an *I'm am religous* front.)

And I'm not sure that America really is becoming more secular. PEW conducted a poll in 2001 that found 78% of those polled felt the influence of religion in the US was growing. And 61% said that religion was important in their own lives. A PEW poll in 2007 found that only 16% of the population identify themselves as unaffiliated with a specific religion. Americans rightly want separation of church and state, but most people don't actually know (again, thanks to the mainstream media and our liberal dominated school system) what the founders of this country actually meant by that. In that, the areligious far left have succeeded. In any case, I certainly hope we don't become like the secular societies in Europe. That wouldn't be good for the world.

And I hate that word "progressive". The far left thinks they can hide the stink inside the democrat party by calling it a rose. And given the obvious gullibility of a large portion of the American public (especially those democrats who believed Clinton's lies for years and years and still do), perhaps they are right (for once). But that won't be good for America. Isn't it curious how many of the modern tyrannies have started out with similar flowery language about themselves and a *secular* movement?

Airamerica has been doing quite well for itself, and one of it's hosts is now on MSNBC (maddow), and they're looking for another candidate to fill in their 10pm timeslot, possibly from Air America.

Well, at least MSNBC no longer pretends to be anything but a voice box for the far left. To give you an idea of what an airhead she is, she recently bashed Fox News then admitted she'd "never seen a show on Fox at any time ever."

Despite your glowing reviews, the verdict is still out on AirAmerica and Maddow long term success. They clearly both still suffer from the characteristic that has made left-wing radio attempts such failures up till now ... an unwillingness to give air time to (i.e., face off with) anyone but liberals and leftists ... and a lack of real humor. Why she's not even willing to actually listen to what a more conservative outlet says, as noted above. No, she's too sure she knows it all and that her view are right (for all the wrong reasons).

 

[Gangularis]

LOL! I think the problem is that due to the left wing bias of the mainstream media

Hasn't this liberal media myth been debunked, here?? So to get this straight.. you're saying that the reason people listen to conservative radio is because most of the nation is conservative.. then the statement is made that that's the reason liberal radio fails.. but then you turn around and accuse the mainstream media of being liberal.. Is that not a glaring contradiction?? Shouldn't the mainstream "liberal" media, also fail, if your premise is true??

most of those who voted for Obama don't really know Obama's leftist ideals and lack of abilities. If they did, perhaps they wouldn't have been so easily mesmerized.

Oh, but the people that didn't vote for him are more informed about him, right? They're not fooled by that terrorist sympathizing, Arab, communist, Kenyan native!!

And with regards to the US becoming more secular, that seems at odds with the effort by Obama the last two elections to *seem* religious. He openly bragged in 2004, when he ran for the US senate, that he attended Reverend Wright's sermons EVERY saturday. (Yet during this election he wanted to pretend like he hardly knew what Wright said at many of those sermons while still presenting an *I'm am religous* front.)

Denouncing his pastor for saying the types of crazy things radical pastors are known for saying is completely separate from say..denouncing religion vs reporting to be religious... unless his religion is Reverend Wright worship..which it's not.. he didn't denounce Jesus.. So what reason do you have for taking the detour down the Rev. Wright smear campaign trail, again? It doesn't hold an ounce in support of your premise.

And I'm not sure that America really is becoming more secular. PEW conducted a poll in 2001 that found 78% of those polled felt the influence of religion in the US was growing. And 61% said that religion was important in their own lives. A PEW poll in 2007 found that only 16% of the population identify themselves as unaffiliated with a specific religion. Americans rightly want separation of church and state, but most people don't actually know (again, thanks to the mainstream media and our liberal dominated school system) what the founders of this country actually meant by that. In that, the areligious far left have succeeded. In any case, I certainly hope we don't become like the secular societies in Europe. That wouldn't be good for the world.

A lot of the people in those polls say they associate themselves with a certain religion, but a large chunk of the people in those polls don't practice, don't go to church, and barely know squat about the religions they supposedly associate themselves with. They probably concern themselves with the Baywatch story arch, more than any serious religious practice.

And I hate that word "progressive". The far left thinks they can hide the stink inside the democrat party by calling it a rose.

You just like that the word "liberal" has been demonized and turned into a bad word, and you don't want to lose the easy win factor that goes with calling someone a liberal. Because your so called liberal media, and the conservatives have done such a swell job of demonizing it.

And given the obvious gullibility of a large portion of the American public (especially those democrats who believed Clinton's lies for years and years and still do),

You're actually going back to "Clinton's lies"..? Seriously??... how depraved..

perhaps they are right (for once). But that won't be good for America. Isn't it curious how many of the modern tyrannies have started out with similar flowery language about themselves and a *secular* movement?

WHAT??!? I never said anything about a secular movement.. i'm talking about a natural shift, towards secularism. I think calling it a "movement" is a bit of an overstatement..

Well, at least MSNBC no longer pretends to be anything but a voice box for the far left. To give you an idea of what an airhead she is, she recently bashed Fox News then admitted she'd "never seen a show on Fox at any time ever."

Yes, as opposed to the brilliant minds on fox news, whose flapping brains we see, aired out, on national television, on a daily basis, no less..

Despite your glowing reviews, the verdict is still out on AirAmerica and Maddow long term success. They clearly both still suffer from the characteristic that has made left-wing radio attempts such failures up till now ... an unwillingness to give air time to (i.e., face off with) anyone but liberals and leftists ... and a lack of real humor.

You're joking, right?? The only witty/funny right wingers I know of are Jackie Gleason and Dennis Miller.. and Gleason is almost dead..(and not really that funny, anyway - just thought i'd throw you a bone).. Maddow and Olberman regularly deliver their punditry in the vein of satire.. I know of no effective right wing pundit that does this on a regular basis.. That said, right wing pundits like O'reilly, Hannity, and Gibson are funny.. not because they try to be.. but rather because they've become walking parodies of themselves.. In that sense, you're right. They are funny!

Where's all of the wonderful, far right, political satirists? I don't see them.. Where are their shows? Mad TV? SNL? Family Guy? Simpsons? Futurama? South Park (libertarians - but no serious political leanings)? The Onion?

Why she's not even willing to actually listen to what a more conservative outlet says, as noted above. No, she's too sure she knows it all and that her view are right (for all the wrong reasons).

Rachel Maddow doesn't own a television.. She has guests with opposing views on, on a regular basis, and also browses the internet.. I'm sure you knew that though, because I bet you get your informed opinion of her by watching her, every other night - at least! What exactly do you think it is that Maddow does? What do partisan talking heads do? They bitch about the other party.. What do you have to do in order to bitch about the other party?? You have to listen to what they're saying.. so obviously she does listen to conservative outlets, otherwise she'd run out of material, pretty fast..

 

[Alex Libman]

Wow. What arrogance.
Ya gotta love all these John Galt wannabes.

You call me arrogant for standing by my values, and yet you fail to present a rational critique of them...

The "fairness doctrine" is not about communist A being "unfair" to communist B, or vice-versa. It is about the political elite limiting the debate to a false paradigm. Heads they win. Tails they win. All other ideas are silenced.

 

[BeAChooser]

Hasn't this liberal media myth been debunked, here??

No. You must have imagined it. I'm happy to debate the topic if you like. We could do it one of three ways. We could take turns naming newsworthy stories that the bulk of the media ignored, distorted or minimized. I'm willing to bet the majority would be stories on something that would have shed a bad light on liberals or their agenda. Or we could take turns naming mainstream news sources that are biased. You name one you think has a conservative bias, then I'll name one that has a liberal bias. Both of us should be prepared to defend our assertions. And we'll go back and forth. You will run out of names long before I do. Or we can start linking studies done on media bias. I bet you run out of ones that support your views long before I do.

So to get this straight.. you're saying that the reason people listen to conservative radio is because most of the nation is conservative.

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said is that folks voted for Obama because they never heard the other side of the story ... never heard all the facts because the liberally biased mainstream media tends not to provide both sides of any given issue. Conservative stations dominate the radio dial because they are interesting. The reason they are interesting is because conservative outlets have no problem letting liberals on to be interviewed or letting them call in to give their opinions ... and then try to defend them. Liberal stations are generally boring because they present only one side ... their side ... of issues. They generally go out of their way to NOT invite the other side to present their views ... either as guests or as people who just call in and are allowed to talk. And when they do allow the other side to chance to speak they generally find someone who either isn't very good at it, someone with far far right views, or someone who is a conservative in name only and thus agrees with them. Unfortunately, talk radio has only a relatively small, but faithful, following ... compared to TV, Cable and printed media, where liberals by far dominate the number of outlets and viewership.

Oh, but the people that didn't vote for him are more informed about him, right?

On the whole, yes.

So what reason do you have for taking the detour down the Rev. Wright smear campaign trail, again?

Let me try to lead you through the logic once more. You claimed the US is becoming more secular. I pointed out that if that's true, it's curious that Obama made a big deal out being religious the last two elections. There is also a relevance to the issue of media bias so I noted that Obama bragged about attending Reverend Wright's sermons EVERY week during the election in 2004 yet claimed during the Presidential election that he never really knew Wright's extreme views because he didn't hear the sermons. The liberal mainstream media let him get away with that dishonesty ... rather than asking him how that could possibly be when he had infact attended Wright's sermons every single week (and presumably so did his wife and children who likely would have wanted to discuss Wright's outrageous statements with such a wise person as Barack).

A lot of the people in those polls say they associate themselves with a certain religion, but a large chunk of the people in those polls don't practice, don't go to church, and barely know squat about the religions they supposedly associate themselves with.

I can only repeat what the surveys found ... that 78% of those polled felt the influence of religion in the US was growing and that 61% said that religion was important in their own lives.

You just like that the word "liberal" has been demonized

It was easy to "demonize" given the unwise and illogical actions and opinions of liberals. And their inability to defend themselves in real give and take. I predict the same thing will eventually happen to "progressive". Then what will you call yourselves?

You're actually going back to "Clinton's lies"..? Seriously??... how depraved..

Is it depraved to point out that Clinton lied to literally every person he could possibly have lied to, and democrats still adored him? I think that's rather significant, especially given the fact that his wife, a co-dependent liar, is in Obama's administration.

i'm talking about a natural shift, towards secularism.

And I'm talking about how dangerous secularism has been in modern times. It's no coincidence that most of the modern tyrannies in the non-islamic world have started out as secular movements which identified themselves with flowery language like "progressive".

To give you an idea of what an airhead she is, she recently bashed Fox News then admitted she'd "never seen a show on Fox at any time ever."

Yes, as opposed to the brilliant minds on fox news, whose flapping brains we see, aired out, on national television, on a daily basis, no less..

I gave you a specific example. Can't you do the same? Or is vagueness all you have to offer?

You're joking, right??

Not at all. Modern extreme liberals, like Maddow and Olberman, seem to lack any real sense of humor. Because they take themselves too seriously. That's one of the reasons liberal talk shows generally fail to compete with conservative ones.

Where's all of the wonderful, far right, political satirists?

They are all around you. Ann Coulter is one. With great legs. But you take yourselves too serious to appreciate her genius.

How about Ben Stein? Or Paul Shanklin? They are all around you but you take yourself too serious to see them for what they are.

Rachel Maddow doesn't own a television.

ROTFLOL!

She has guests with opposing views on, on a regular basis

Well name some of the conservative guests she's had on her show and the issue they were discussing. I know she's had Pat Buchanan on, but I don't consider Pat Buchanan to be representative of conservative views. I'm talking about conservatives who aren't stark raving lunatics or already viewed that way by most of the public thanks to the portrait the liberal media has successfully painted of them in people's minds. I'm talking about conservatives that on the inside of the mainstream conservative movement, not on the fringes or outside it.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/rachel_maddow_the_power_of_par.html

This is not a woman who gives a hoot for balance, fairness, verified facts, context or any of the other things traditional journalism have demanded in the past of those sitting at TV anchor desks.

so obviously she does listen to conservative outlets, otherwise she'd run out of material, pretty fast..

She bitched about Fox News ... yet she admits she hasn't EVER watched it.