They’ve been after Limbaugh and Fox for quite awhile now and I guarandamntee you that this doctrine will amazingly enough be ONLY applied to them, with maybe Hannity and a couple other conservative hosts thrown in.
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
This is just precious:Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the "illegal" war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush’s repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the "right-wing oriented media" were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria. And his answer to that creeping "neo-fascism"?His answer, a bill titled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs. Yep. That’ll solve it. I guess this is the "fight fire with fire" approach?
It will never cease to amaze me that people fall for the idea that government isn’t the problem, but instead that it’s the people who run the government who are the problem. I mean, how gullible do you have to be to believe that that the answer to creeping government intrusion into our lives is more government intrusion? |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://asecondhandconjecture.com
|
Maurice Hinchey is involved, eh?
This would be the same Maurice Hinchey that threatened Sean Hannity in the spring of ’05 during a radio interview. They were in a commercial break at the time as I recall, but the radio station were still recording, and Hannity is rumored to have that taped threat in his possession.
I can hardly wait for the House hearings... |
| |
Written By:
Confederate Yankee
URL:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu
|
Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the "illegal" war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush’s repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. Scratches chin....
It reads as if Representative Hinchey is claiming that the Democrats in the House and Senate who voted for OIF were listening to "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" radio talk show hosts. If they don’t, how could those radio shows have influenced their OIF approval votes? |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
It reads as if Representative Hinchey is claiming that the Democrats in the House and Senate who voted for OIF were listening to "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" radio talk show hosts. If they don’t, how could those radio shows have influenced their OIF approval votes? Heh ... well it wasn’t characterized as "hysteria" incorrectly, was it? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
I’ll grant you that resurrecting the fairness doctrine would be wrong, but referring to what radio has become a bastion of as conservative thought must be either ironic or charitable.
There’s an argument for the Democrats against restoring the fairness doctrine. If they do, then they might unleash upon the union a set of broadcasters as odious and embarrassing as those whom they mean to silence. Of course this might not be persuasive given that many of them probably thought that Air America was admirable. |
| |
Written By:
Paul A. Brömmer
URL:
http://www.vikinghats.com
|
People actually listen to radio talk shows?
How?
I mean seriously, it’s like 10 minutes of talk interrupted by 50 minutes of commercials.
No thanks, I’ll take Q&O over AM any day. |
| |
Written By:
Robb Allen
URL:
http://blog.robballen.com
|
Can this apply anywhere? I mean, if the local sports talk jock trashes the local baseball team, can they use this doctrine to demand equal time to defend themselves?
In some towns, your team is more important than your politics or religion.
On the other hand, whenever the news yammers about global warming, can global warming skeptics get equal time?
This could be fun after all... |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
In some towns, your team is more important than your politics or religion. Come on shark... it’s not SOME towns... it is MOST towns. I believe Boortz says it best "ask anyone at the water cooler who the college coach is or who the starting pitcher is and you’ll get an answer. Now ask them who their congress person is. Usually silence. Who is the Sec of State... almost always silence".
Sports is more important to the masses. Bread and circus.On the other hand, whenever the news yammers about global warming, can global warming skeptics get equal time?
Now we’re talking! But it won;t work. To Kucinich, fairness is a one way street. |
| |
Written By:
meagain
URL:
http://
|
Dennis Kucinich was on Hugh Hewitt last week. Maybe he is not happy with his treatment on that show. |
| |
Written By:
Paul L.
URL:
http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
|
Come on shark... it’s not SOME towns... it is MOST towns. I believe Boortz says it best "ask anyone at the water cooler who the college coach is or who the starting pitcher is and you’ll get an answer. Now ask them who their congress person is. Usually silence. Who is the Sec of State... almost always silence". To be fair, the coach or starting pitcher is usually much more effective at their jobs than your congressperson or Sec. State :) |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Can this apply anywhere? I mean, if the local sports talk jock trashes the local baseball team, can they use this doctrine to demand equal time to defend themselves? Given the perpetual controversy of Creationism v. Evolution, would re-enacting the ’Fairness Doctrine’ mean that religous radio stations owned and operated by church groups would have to grant equal time to folks espousing Darwin’s Theory? |
| |
Written By:
Ronnie Gipper
URL:
http://socalconservative.blogspot.com
|
And if this does come back, what’s next? Price controls?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
And if this does come back, what’s next? Price controls? of course, after all it is Democrats we are talking about. |
| |
Written By:
kyle N
URL:
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
|
His answer, a bill titled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs. Somebody please remind me why we need a "Federal Communications Commission" at all? The fact that we ever had (and still have) such a thing, with nefarious bureaucrats "monitoring and altering" the content of radio and television programs in the first place is kind of creepy.
Sometimes we forget that although the Bill of Rights states that we have the right to free speech and freedom of the press, that’s only after the government gives it the OK. |
| |
Written By:
DS
URL:
http://
|
About the only thing that we need the FCC for is the technical stuff about one station not excessively interfering with another.
If you have a station on 1190 in your town, the station on 1200 about 200 miles away shouldn’t cover it over.
Stuff like that.
Content? They’ll never please anyone so they shouldn’t start trying. |
| |
Written By:
David R. Block
URL:
http://
|