Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

The Fairness Doctrine

Reply to Thread
  1. wagewar wagewar is offline

    United States

    Posts: 449
    Joined: Feb 06

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 4:41am)

    Who's for or against it? Yay or nay? I'm definitely against it. Free speech should remain free.
  2. meccabush meccabush is offline

    Phoenix, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 1,232
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 4:56am) in reply to wagewar

    I am for it only because without it speech becomes a matter of money. Media should be balanced not subject to whims of advertisers
  3. Dyzalot Dyzalot is offline

    Candia, NH
    United States

    Posts: 14,471
    Joined: May 05

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 5:27am) in reply to meccabush

    Balanced between what? Who decides when it is "balanced"? The Fairness Doctrine is government control of the media and quite unconstitutional in my opinion.
     3
  4. meccabush meccabush is offline

    Phoenix, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 1,232
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 5:43am) in reply to Dyzalot

    The government censors the media regardless (FCC, NSA homeland security) But i would rather listen to both extremes of an issue, story etc. Rather than be bombarded by the side that appeases advertisers and gets the highest ratings. Hell it would be a hell of a lot better if we had easy access to foreign press.
  5. Artiecat Artiecat is offline

    Togo

    Posts: 5,639
    Joined: Jan 05

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 7:05am) in reply to meccabush

    Change the channel mecca. Free speech FTW!!!
     
  6. meccabush meccabush is offline

    Phoenix, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 1,232
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 7:38am) in reply to Artiecat

     
    Originally Posted by Artiecat View Post

    Change the channel mecca. Free speech FTW!!!

    That is what I do but when it comes to the ignorant masses that are allowed to vote they need structure else they have no ability to make an informed decision. This country wasn't formed to let everyone vote just the individuals who were likely to be well informed. Besides how the fuck is looking at both sides of an issue going against free speech. Without the fairness doctrine the media merely became a means to polarize the country. Tell me how many conservative radio hosts are sponsored by ad revenue compared to listener contribution and vice-versa for the progressives (liberals for you indoctrinated hill folk).

    Consider the fact Obama's purchase of 30 minutes of ad time caused the network to force the MLB to change the World Series start time. Though this isn't a case of the news media only explaining one side of an issue it does demonstrate just how much authority is given to those with the spending capacity. So in a non-fairness doctrine system like we have today journalistic integrity takes a back seat to profit margins. Which is almost blasphamist to any real democracy.... good thing we aren't in one though.
  7. leoslayer leoslayer is offline

    Raleigh, NC
    United States

    Posts: 622
    Joined: Nov 07

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 7:57am) in reply to meccabush

    air america tried to make a go of it and failed the radio stations are private companies and should be able to put what they want on. besides you already have all the newspapers and networks
  8. meccabush meccabush is offline

    Phoenix, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 1,232
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 8:07am) in reply to leoslayer

     
    Originally Posted by leoslayer View Post

    air america tried to make a go of it and failed the radio stations are private companies and should be able to put what they want on. besides you already have all the newspapers and networks

    All controlled by ad revenue and this leads to self censorship.

    http://people-press.org/report/39/

    "For instance, about one-in-five local (20%) and national (17%) reporters say they have faced criticism or pressure from their bosses after producing or writing a piece that was seen as damaging to their company's financial interests."

    That number is too fucking high for any so called free press system.

    goodnight
  9. leoslayer leoslayer is offline

    Raleigh, NC
    United States

    Posts: 622
    Joined: Nov 07

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 8:15am) in reply to meccabush

    it did not get ad revenue cause nobody tuned in. you do have npr
  10. Artiecat Artiecat is offline

    Togo

    Posts: 5,639
    Joined: Jan 05

    Oct 22nd, 2008 (10/22/2008 8:20am) in reply to meccabush

    While it's true that I barely understood your rambling post, I will make an attempt to rebutt your points (that I think you tried to convey).

    "That is what I do but when it comes to the ignorant masses that are allowed to vote they need structure else they have no ability to make an informed decision."

    Wow. After adding my own punctuation, I think I understand your point. So people are just too dumb? Therefore we need some agency to regulate what we hear. So, after all those dumb people digest this regulated information, somehow they're not so dumb anymore and can make an informed decision? LOOOL!!!!

    "This country wasn't formed to let everyone vote just the individuals who were likely to be well informed."

    I would love to respond, but this sentence does not compute.

    "Besides how the fuck is looking at both sides of an issue going against free speech."

    I'm assuming that this is a question so I will attempt to answer it: It doesn't. It only goes against free speech when the government regulates and stifles speech. This is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine does.

    "Without the fairness doctrine the media merely became a means to polarize the country."

    We haven't had this bs in over 20 years. Now, more than ever, people have access to an even wider spectrum of viewpoints.

    "Tell me how many conservative radio hosts are sponsored by ad revenue compared to listener contribution and vice-versa for the progressives (liberals for you indoctrinated hill folk)."

    LOL! Aren't all radio hosts sponsored by ad revenue? What's your point?

    "Consider the fact Obama's purchase of 30 minutes of ad time caused the network to force the MLB to change the World Series start time. Though this isn't a case of the news media only explaining one side of an issue it does demonstrate just how much authority is given to those with the spending capacity."

    Good for him.

    "So in a non-fairness doctrine system like we have today journalistic integrity takes a back seat to profit margins."

    It didn't work the first time. What makes you think it will work now? Free speech and free markets FTW!!!
     
Reply to Thread