The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my
colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw
the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to
silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new
alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during
’08. In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster's Freedom
Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for
revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” -- which would require radio station
owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
Experts
say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan
Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in
providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative
broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in
the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many
stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk
show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.
At
a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked
Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge
petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would
she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.
<iframe
src="http://harvest234.adgardener.com/daisies.aspx?isS=-1&s=46&p=b22626f3-b1ca-4c77-91a0-633ba922f3de&c=c9d90a5b-90b2-466c-9f37-2e29599f1e0b&ihr=1"
style="width:300px;height:250px;" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0"
hspace="0" vspace="0" frameborder="0"
scrolling="no"
allowTransparency="true">
<a
href="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=46&c=c9d90a5b-90b2-466c-9f37-2e29599f1e0b"
target="_blank"><img
src="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=46&w=300&h=250&c=c9d90a5b-90b2-466c-9f37-2e29599f1e0b"
width="300" height="250" border="0"
/></a>
</iframe>
“No,”
the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that “the interest
in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise
Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness
Doctrine] for a while now.”
Pelosi pointed out that, after it
returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for
another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a
lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as
FISA and an energy bill.
“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation
Pelosi to Senate: Filibuster FISA
Although
Speaker Pelosi would not specifically call for Sen. Barack Obama to
lead a filibuster against Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
legislation in the Senate, she did send a strong signal that she was
positive about the talk of filibuster against the surveillance measure
by Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd (CT.) and Russ Feingold (Wisc.)
Recalling
that there were many issues before the Senate that she felt deserved
but did not get a filibuster -- on the war in Iraq and expansion of the
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that the
Administration vetoed, for example -- Pelosi voiced her opinion that “a
filibuster focuses on a very important issue” and that the importance
of FISA “justifies that.”
The Speaker pointed out that “if the
Senate has the ability to filibuster, and “I think there is a great
appetite in the public for such a debate on [FISA] to take place. And
I think it would be healthy and wholesome.”
Of her own unusual
vote for the surveillance bill coupled with an admonition to colleagues
that they were not obliged to do the same, Pelosi was pressed by
nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak.
“It’s better than
the underlying FISA law,” Pelosi told Novak, “It’s better than what the
Senate had sent us. It’s not good enough, as far as I’m concerned.
But I did for it because, again, we have our choices to make and I
viewed my role as saving the world, the House, the Congress, from the
Senate bill, and the Protect America Act, the Administration’s bill.
But it isn’;t the bill I would have written.”
...no matter who wins the White House.
Nevermind that POLITICAL speech was the main thing our Founding Dads had in mind with that whole 1st Amendment thing.
Obama will likely bring FD back by Executive fiat.
McCain may not be able to sustain a veto on legislation returning it (and frankly, given his record on free speech a la McCain-Feingold, I'd not bet heavily against HIM bringing it back -- talk radio certainly has not been his friend).
RIP 1st Amendment, Komrade.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
The Corporate Media Lords will continue to poison the public minds, until the Revolution. It's amazing, the boogeymen that the right-wing ding-a-lings try to conjure up. Big Media owns our "Democracy". Get used to it.
Only people afraid of the truth would work so hard to silence their opposition.
(I don't really care for Rush so he's not the point here) The point is that why is it that one group of people think they have the right to force a privately owned radio station to air their opinion? What's next? They going to take over my church sermons and have state sponsored churches like they do in China and Korea?
Radio stations are GIVEN broadcast licenses FREE of charge to use the publicly-owned airwaves. And the FCC, which regulates this public good, is supported by our tax dollar.
"Our" tax dollars also support NPR, which last time I was strapped to the mast and forced to listen, had absolutely no balance. Of course, the left doesn't see that bias, since it generally proceeds from a false assumption that everyone agrees that big government for the "public good", limits on personal freedoms for the "public good" and redistribution of wealth for the "public good" is both the mainstream view and the correct view.
When you proceed from that assumption, any view that advances smaller government, greater personal freedom and a healthy respect for private property and wealth is viewed as "right wing ding-a-ling" (right Pinky?) and needs to be "balanced" (which is really LeftSpeak for corrected or silenced).
1derfully has it exactly right. What's the left afraid of? I have the answer....in a FREE and FAIR debate, they're afraid of LOSING.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
Ah yes, the old "NPR-liberal MYTH". Here is some good reading on NPR's "liberal bias". We can look back to the Iraq invasion to expose your "NPR is only liberal MYTH". NPR was completely PRO-WAR. Nary a dissenting voice. Most sources on NPR are conservative.
When you proceed from that assumption, any view that advances smaller government, greater personal freedom and a healthy respect for private property and wealth is viewed as "right wing ding-a-ling"
Nope. Those views are shared by many, including myself. But right wing ding-a-lings are ok with substituting one form of control (gov't) with another (corporate).
What's the left afraid of? I have the answer....in a FREE and FAIR debate, they're afraid of LOSING
Wrong. The "left" is never afraid of losing in a debate with right wing ding-a-lings. But in radio, they're not even in the game. It's the ding-a-lings who are afraid of debate. That's why you're scared shitless of some doctrine that will never pass.
["Wrong. The "left" is never afraid of losing in a debate with right wing ding-a-lings. But in radio, they're not even in the game. It's the ding-a-lings who are afraid of debate. That's why you're scared shitless of some doctrine that will never pass."]
What do you call the attempt at leftist radio called "Air America"? Sorry, but the problem is that no one wanted to hear the leftists spew their socialist and collectivist nonsense.
They were given a fair shot. The great thing about a free society is that if no one wants to hear it, (and in Air America's case) they turn it off.
Air America? What station were they on? WSPD? WTOD?
Looks to me like they stream it on the internet. But, historically they have not been able to get funding to stay on the air. Looks like they tried syndication, too, so any radio station could have picked it up.
Seems to me that there just isn't a real want or need for these types of programs in this radio market.
So then they were never really "given their fair shot", eh Baldy? Odd--considering this is a highly Democratic area. Tough to lose debates when you're not in the game.
...you link to MEDIAMATTERS, itself a left-wing front organization for "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" (quote from their own Website, not my right wing ding-a-ling interpretation). Typically liberal, once again proceeding from the false assumption of their own correctness, and referencing their own navel gazing as proof. Sounds REALLY balanced to me.
Next time you try to change the subject when you've lost, you might want to try changing it to something helpful to your argument.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
And what did you submit as proof that NPR "had absolutely no balance", other than you're own "false assumption" of your correctness? NOTHING. Truth is, no one thinks NPR is liberal except the ding-a-lings. You want to listen it Pentagon Propaganda? Then NPR is for you!
...which you did, thanks.
No one? Really?
Think UCLA is a bastion of right-wing ding-a-lings?
Check out http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664....
(which, by the way also reinforces the informed opinions of other right-thinking posters here making comments about the left leanings of the print and TV broadcast media -- and to your credit does say that NPR is not "that much more" liberal than other left leaning outlets).
While polls are not proof, certainly polls indicate that many Americans perceive bias...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/g...
(if some of these percentages are indications of the the number in the ding-a-ling right, there's still hope)
And if the cite from UCLA wasn't enough, how about hitting the other coast and cite that bastion of right wing ding-a-lings, Harvard?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
Yes, I know it appeared in IBD and to the uniting workers of the world, that's a problem...but it's a Harvard study, cited in the graph.
Keep trying. I might be impressed.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
Why do you suppose the UCLA study didn't just use ADA ratings of congressmembers quoted by those news outlets, instead of the peculiar Rube Goldberg–like method? Perhaps because they wouldn't have liked the results? Or is it because one of the authors is a Cato Institute scholar? Besides, that study was debuked as soon as it came out. For instance, they studied the WSJ for a selected 4-month period, but studied CBS News for 12 years?
And the Havard study only looks at a specific event, the Presidential primaries. The study says that even CONSERVATIVE RADIO had more favorable coverage of the Democrats. Are you going to tell me that conservative radio is liberal as well???? Hahahahahhahahahaa....
Nice try though
Citing links to FAIR and AmericanProgress, another couple left-leaning front groups to "debunk" (not debuke, last I checked) my examples.
I've given two examples of university scholarship -- and the best you can do is trot out lefty "research" groups who don't like who did them or how they were done. I can certainly find more examples for my position; there were a bunch to choose from when I looked...and if we want to play "my front groups can beat up your front groups," I can certainly CITE Cato, Heritage, etc.
So tell you what, find me two examples of credible university scholarship that supports your view (and that's a pretty big concession on my part, given the leanings of academia) and we'll debate your findings on their merits -- and as a special one-time bonus, I'll even take a stab at your "conservative radio is liberal" shot. Limited time offer, I actually do have work to get to today.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
What of the CONTENT? Answer the questions Seldon. Why do you suppose the Cato researcher chose to study the WSJ for only 4 selected months, while he studied CBS News for 12 years? Why didn't the researchers just use ADA ratings of congressmembers quoted by those news outlets? Not to mention, your Cato researcher says the the ACLU is right-of-center. Does this sound accurate to you? I'm not linking to anyone now---just asking questions. Hell, with your standards, the only sources I can link to that AREN'T liberal are Fox News and the Washington TImes.
And dont forget the university study was written by fellows who have also received funding from American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace---the type of think tanks which you previously said were off limits.
The socialistic left is not concerned so much about losing debates in the free marketplace of ideas, as it is about getting control over the rights of individuals. Losing debate becomes moot if they are allowed to be in control. Even if something as pesky as the Constitution stands in their way, they are continually looking for ways to usurp its authority and then letting the courts decide whether it was right or wrong in the first place.
' "Rome" is burning and most people can hardly even see it happening.'
Even if something as pesky as the Constitution stands in their way, they are continually looking for ways to usurp its authority and then letting the courts decide whether it was right or wrong in the first place.
Have you been living under a rock for the last 8 years? The above statement is PERFECT. However, you're a little mixed up. It's the FASCISTIC RIGHT that's responsible for trampling on our Constitution. Rome is indeed burning----thanks to failed conservative policies.
I find that Conservatives need to be constantly reassured that their phobias and views are correct. They hate to be challenged with facts that don't fit neatly into their world.
Conservatives often feel that their marries are so weak that the mere site of two men marrying will cause their own to fail. It's all about controlling that they read, see and hear, nothing to upset their delicate views. They have even created their own versions of science, history and even have their own replacement for Wikipedia.
I wish Air America was my viable, but the core problem is that Liberals don't need their views and fears constantly reinforced.
["I find that Conservatives need to be constantly reassured that their phobias and views are correct. They hate to be challenged with facts that don't fit neatly into their world."]
If you take in context of the current topic, fairness doctrine, the liberal socialists are the ones who need to have their views reaffirmed, because they say they need "equal time" to express their opinion. It is too bad you see it this way because generally, radio is equal time for most conservatives who have little to no output in the print or television media.
["Conservatives often feel that their marries are so weak that the mere site of two men marrying will cause their own to fail. It's all about controlling that they read, see and hear, nothing to upset their delicate views. They have even created their own versions of science, history and even have their own replacement for Wikipedia."]
Don't know what you are going for here, but I sense typical liberal topic switch when you don't have anything on topic to add.
["I wish Air America was my viable, but the core problem is that Liberals don't need their views and fears constantly reinforced."]
Perhaps you feel this way because you get to see it in you paper every day or on the television all the time.
because they say they need "equal time" to express their opinion. It is too bad you see it this way because generally, radio is equal time for most conservatives who have little to no output in the print or television media.
Baldy, there is nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that suggests the need for "equal time". The fact the you think it does shows how little you know about it. Also---how is it that conservatives have "little to no output" in print media? Print media is regulated by no one, and access is unlimited. Are conservatives not allowed to write books? Can't they start their own newspapers? Can't they create their own websites and blogs? How exactly do conservatives have little access to these things?
Yes, thank you for making me clarify this broad area. When I said print media, I should have narrowed it to large newspapers with very large circulation (NY Times, etc.)(Oh yeah the Blade to a lesser extent). These papers have very leftist views in their editorials and reporting.
On the other hand, thank you for reminding me that there are some very good books out there by authors who are not into socialism and communism.
When I said print media, I should have narrowed it to large newspapers with very large circulation (NY Times, etc.)(Oh yeah the Blade to a lesser extent). These papers have very leftist views in their editorials and reporting.
But conservatives can easily create their own newspapers in those towns and compete head-to-head, can't they?
Sure they can. Even Toledo has the start of some sort of independent newspaper (The Free Press). So there is a chance to have a good paper here.
Still, I don't know why leftists are beholden to silence the radio airwaves of conservative voices. Maybe it is because they cannot compete there.
Maybe it is because they cannot compete there
How do you know? When did the conservative stations in Toledo ever have to compete against liberal/progressive talk radio?
Hate to tell you, but the New York Times and the Washington Post are not Liberal. They have some Liberal writers, but they also have some very conservative writers as well. My guess is, just like most Conservatives I know, you have been told they are liberal, but have never bothered to do any reading your self. Once again reaffirming my argument that Conservative don't want to read, see or hear anything that doesn't reaffirm their fears and views.
It's much easier to be told what to think or feel then to do it for yourself. That is why Liberal radio doesn't work well, most of us don't need to be told what to think. I watch all the news networks and I listen to right wing radio. Other then churning my stomach, I don't mind having my belief system questioned, it makes me stronger.
Edited, as I posted in response to Pinky earlier...
Check out http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664....
While polls are not proof, certainly polls indicate that many Americans perceive bias...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/g...
And if the cite from UCLA wasn't enough, how about hitting the other coast and cite that bastion of right wing ding-a-lings, Harvard?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
Yes, I know it appeared in IBD and to the uniting workers of the world, that's a problem...but it's a Harvard study, cited in the graph.
UCLA and Harvard studies show bias, and a good number of Americans see/hear bias. If it walks like a duck....
And FWIW, I watch the nightly news (CBS/NBC usually)and CNN with some regularity. It's entertaining, informative and almost always stilted left.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
["Baldy, there is nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that suggests the need for "equal time". The fact the you think it does shows how little you know about it."}
"Mr. Cook sued arguing that the FCC’s fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)
Generally regarded as 'equal time to respond'.
I'd also argue how successfully is Clear Channel. There stock hasn't done anything in over 10 years.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CCU#chart3:symbol=ccu;range=5y;indica...
Apparantly they are able to stay on the air.........
Ahhh, but I thought that a business existed to make money and grow share price for their share holders.
Maybe it wasn't a direct link when I wrote that "they are still in business".
I don't know about you, but logic suggests generally when stations are broadcasting, and continually operating, there would be a general cash flow (as in any company), and some profit (to employees at least) somewhere in the operation.
...while the stock was stayed sideways -- and if shareholders aren't happy with the price of their shares (or the perceived editorial view of management or individual stations), they may sell and move on.
As a taxpayer, I don't have that opportunity with NPR.
As a consumer, if I don't like CC's content, and there are enough people who feel that way, eventually, they'll go out of business. Their "funding" will run out as no one advertises.
How many people have to tune out NPR before they're out of business? The answer is that it doesn't matter b/c of the way they're funded.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
Does Clear Channel "pay a pretty good dividend"?
It's last dividend as around $0.18 per share
GE as around $1.50 per share and Coke was around $1.50 per share.
Hey Troy Neff - why does anyone own CC stock? Is this a good dividend?
You really don't like to stay on topic, do you?
Who cares if clear channel makes a profit or not? They are able to continue to function by themselves and pay their employees.
Not Troy, and don't even play him on TV, but...
Currently, Clear Channel pays about 2%, Coke (which I own) a little less than 3% and GE about 4.5%.
As I'm sure you know, many stocks have never paid a dividend, and recently, many have stopped (homebuilders, banks, for example) as business has deteriorated and the need to conserve cash has increased.
Is 2% good? Better than savings accounts, better than a stock that pays nothing, not as good as GE.
But then, while you were collecting your 4%/year from GE over the past three years, the stock price has declined over 20% -- so if you sold rather than held, you'd be down 12%. Contrast with the "flat" Clear Channel, which is UP about 10% over that same period.
Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."
The lefties are like the righties that want to take away an individuals choice with regards to abortion, I suppose.
Or with the backing of some of the religious community, the righties would like to over turn freedoms when it comes to being able to spend a lifetime with who a person chooses.
All of God given rights are mediated and adjudicated by humans, so if God gave them to us, why then does man need to tell us what are rights are?
EQUAL TIME RULE
U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule
It is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the "golden rule." The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office.
Isn't this rule enough?
- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.
Ah-nold's movies were blocked in California during his campaigning.
According to the Museum of Broadcast Operations
The Fairness Doctrine was separate from Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station.
(p.s. I prefer Fact-Amondo, instead of Fact-o-Rama)
the major media outlets have had to telecast, broadcast and print the litany of events-gone-wrong in this country, the general public might understandably come to the conclusion the bearers-of-bad-news have a different political and philosophical slant than the administration they are reporting on.
When media outlets are reporting on the abysmal approval ratings of the President, the lack of consumer confidence nation-wide and ruderless direction the country is headed, the media is simply reporting on the opinions and feelings of the very same public that believes it has a 'liberal' bent.
"When media outlets are reporting on the abysmal approval ratings of the President, the lack of consumer confidence nation-wide and ruderless direction the country is headed, the media is simply reporting on the opinions and feelings of the very same public that believes it has a 'liberal' bent."
And the TRUTH that libtarded American pea-brains hope YOU are too stupid to find out.
From NPR Website:"It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999
From the Zogby poll website:
"Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches."
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
So the FACTS say that there IS a bias, it IS Liberal, AND IT IS NOTICABLE.
Your silly-ass links don't amount to jack-squat.
okey-dokey, there is all this 'bias' and 'slanting' of the news to a 'liberal' perspective by the 'liberal' media and evidently the public is fully aware of this 'bias' and believes it to be so.
So, why do poll numbers look like this:
Percentage who said the USA's economic condition had improved since GWB became president: 9%
Percentage who said the USA's economic condition had worsened since GWB became president: 75%
- L.A. Times/Bloomberg 6/26/08
Why are Americans increasingly pessimistic about this country's direction? About their consumer confidence? About whether the Iraq war was worth it? After all, they realize the 'liberal' media has been bending and twisting the facts to suite their 'liberal' tendencies, so why is George Bush's approval rating 27%? Silly public, are they unable to think for themselves? They know the reporting is slanted, but they seem to believe it anyway?
It's amazing! Maybe there is hope!
THAT IS THE POINT YOU RETARD. If this TRULY is a "Fairness Doctrine" then it cannot single out Talk Radio. The AM dial is only a small part of the entire media structure.
To be TRULY fair, your "Fairness Doctrine" must include TV, print, newspapers, magazines etc.
Your silly-assed "poll numbers" mean jack shit since THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA obviously has a Liberal slant (as you stated above) and not everyone listens to AM radio. However you cannot go ANYWHERE without running into a Liberal Slanted newspaper, TV station, magazine etc. Hell, just sitting in your Doctors waiting room you are exposed to ONLY the Liberal Media.
With TRUE unbiased reporting by the rest of the media, those poll numbers you gave would be different. BOTH sides of the story would be available to the "Silly Public" and those who do not have their lips attached to Howard Deans ass (like you) would be able to weigh the information and make a decision for themselves.
Why are you Liberals so afraid of TWO sides of a story being reported? If you TRULY support a "Fairness Doctrine", then SUPPORT IT 100%.
To single out ONE aspect of the media but not the others is not fair, and even YOU have to admit that. Unless you are a Marxist type who wants to censure free thought AGAINST YOUR GOVERNMENT.
By the way, moron, those links I gave were NOT public polls, they were polls done ON the mainstream media BY the mainstream media.
THOSE POLL NUMBERS CAME DIRECTLY FROM REPORTERS, not from people reading the newspapers.
to get worked up again about a thread that hasn't been commented on in over two months, my mind's occupied processing the news John McCain has just named the Alaskan governor (????) as his running mate. Hope you're happy with the 'liberal' media's reporting of this somewhat shocking developement, Libs. Yeah, I know, you're voting for Bob Barr. Bully for you.