Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58

Thread: Sen. Rockefeller: FCC should shut down Fox News and MSNBC

  1. #16
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    346

    Default

    I'm not calling them "fair and balanced" but they do offer dissenting views on some programs. O'Reilly spends a good amount of time berating the liberals that appear on his show, and misrepresents their views to boot. I don't know that obligating the network to provide opposing views would make much difference.
    Posted from my iPhone

  2. #17
    Elite Member *DIVA!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    15,762

    Default

    Sell that to someone else who never watched FAUX.


    I don''t know if she really fucked the board though. Maybe just put the tip in. -Mrs. Dark

  3. #18
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pojo View Post
    Posted from my iPhone


    Fox does have liberal commentators sometimes. Didn't they just give Juan Williams a bigger role?(yeah he's a bit on the moderate side, but that still makes him a flaming liberal on the network).
    Posted from my iPhone
    I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "commentators". Are these hosts or co-hosts? Or just people who are solicited from time to time to give the official "liberal side"?

    One example is you have a Mon through Saturday morning show, like Fox & Friends. It's supposed to be a "happy talk" morning program like the Today Show, etc. Except that all three spout pure conservative blather for two or three straight hours. And almost all the time, on political segments, their featured guest is someone like Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, or Michelle Malkin. A VERY conservative guest who is allowed an unrestrained, unchallenged monologue in answer to their every softball question.

    Would it make a difference if an actual opposing liberal (not handpicked by Fox) appeared with a counter response? Of course it would. First, it would interrupt the incredibly one-sided politicking by FoxNews. Second, it would create some cognitive dissonance in the few regular viewers who haven't had their brains destroyed yet. For people who believe in some truth, there is no downside to the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

  4. #19
    Elite Member *DIVA!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    15,762

    Default

    And why we are on the subject of inappropriate television... How about the 700 club? I mean that show is just wrong!


    I don''t know if she really fucked the board though. Maybe just put the tip in. -Mrs. Dark

  5. #20
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by *DIVA! View Post
    You do know all of us can fucking read and comprehend, right?
    I know that. I'm frustrated that we lost, as it's a bad sign for the direction of our country in the coming years.

  6. #21
    Elite Member darksithbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,965

    Default

    So this is what is becoming of us.

  7. #22
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Who's "we" exactly.

    You're still operating on that whole "Dems good, GOP bad" idea, which is fairly old fashioned and naive.

    The GOP is awful, and the Dems are better by a fraction of a degree. Most of the difference is actually just rhetoric. The substance is remarkably similar.

    Of course, as the country lurches ever rightward and the GOP sinks to new depths (taking the Dems along with them), all the dems have to do is stay one rung above the GOP to say "hey we're better".

    They'll both be drowning in sewage.. but the Dems will be drowning in an inch less of sewage. Woo, vote for them!

    When the monied interests, corporations, and lobby groups control the government (no matter who is technically in charge) it means your "democracy" is dead.

    Has been for awhile.. ever since corporations got personhood status back in the 70s. When a Democratic president upholds and continues (and expands on) the worst abuses that his political opponent put in place before him... what's the point?

    2 heads of the same monster: the corporate plutocracy party.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #23
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    It's supply and demand. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. are successful because they draw millions of listeners and thus make tons of money. They're entertaining to tons of people, for whatever reasons. Instead of demanding that contrasting views be forced on their shows, liberals should try and have a successful radio show of their own that can compete on that level.

    Anybody for the Fairness Doctrine would probably hate the flip side real quick when The Daily Show was twice as long, or SNL, or whoever has a more liberal perspective, were required to stop every minutes so a "contrasting voice" could be heard. The whole idea of it is stupid: yeah, talk radio is generally more conservative but there is other media (most popular music, films and TV shows) that tends to be more liberal. Don't like something? Don't listen/watch/buy it and support what you consider a better product.

    For people who believe in some truth, there is no downside to the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
    The downside is that it swings both ways, and I guarantee the Democrats won't like that. There was also a push by Democrats for it to apply on blogs. So yes, it's a huge downside for anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment and wants to express their views, including on the Internet, without a nanny state requiring that they present the other side of a "controversial issue." Imagine if you have a pro-choice blog and the Fairness Doctrine was reinstated and required you to present the pro-life rebuttal to every point you made. Imagine if you rant about Sarah Palin and the FD requires you to CYA and post a rebuttal every time you do. Imagine Jon Stewart et al. vetting every joke, Rachel Maddow looking behind her shoulder, etc. The Democrats for the Fairness Doctrine are morons who think that reinstating it would just squash talk radio and then everything would be a magical wonderland it would never bite them in the ass.
    Last edited by NoNoRehab; November 22nd, 2010 at 01:27 AM.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  9. #24
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Pretty sure it doesn't apply to comedy or satire.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #25
    Elite Member ana-mish-ana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,236

    Default

    And its a sad state for journalism/news when you have comedy shows actually portraying a more balance and realistic view about the news. Another thing is the problem that its not journalists who are reporting the news in these channels but talking heads/commentators with biases and opinions - it skews facts and that is the problem.

  11. #26
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    The downside is that it swings both ways, and I guarantee the Democrats won't like that. There was also a push by Democrats for it to apply on blogs. So yes, it's a huge downside for anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment and wants to express their views, including on the Internet, without a nanny state requiring that they present the other side of a "controversial issue." Imagine if you have a pro-choice blog and the Fairness Doctrine was reinstated and required you to present the pro-life rebuttal to every point you made. Imagine if you rant about Sarah Palin and the FD requires you to CYA and post a rebuttal every time you do. Imagine Jon Stewart et al. vetting every joke, Rachel Maddow looking behind her shoulder, etc. The Democrats for the Fairness Doctrine are morons who think that reinstating it would just squash talk radio and then everything would be a magical wonderland it would never bite them in the ass.
    How can it be reasonably stated that the Democrats wouldn't like the return of it? The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by a Republican administration under Democrat protests. Democrats have been the ones trying to bring it back -- obviously, they would know what the consequences would be.

    Fairness Doctrine did not apply to comedy or satire. The Smothers Brothers show, which was in the 1960's and very liberal, did not have to present a conservative counterbalance. The converse was true with comedy that was conservative.

    I don't think that Maddow is afraid at all of anyone looking over her shoulder.

  12. #27
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    Democrats have been the ones trying to bring it back -- obviously, they would know what the consequences would be.
    LOL yes, sure because politicians are sooo good about always thinking about consequences. And we've recently seen how great the Dems are about thinking ahead.

    I will say this: the pols are smart enough that not one of them has ever seriously proposed bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. They give lip service to it, sure, but then half of them back pedal and retract their comments and none has ever made even a half-assed attempt to do anything about it. They know it would bite them in the ass: the majority of people polled are against it, Obama is against it, along with every news organization and advertisers, who have bucks big enough that before the ink was dry there would be about a dozen lawsuits. No politician is going to stick their neck out to support something with so little support and would bring tons of bad PR and that, in exchange, has no benefit.

    Pretty sure it doesn't apply to comedy or satire.
    I've read several things about the Fairness Doctrine and haven't seen any exception for comedy and satire. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn't apply to newspapers and it would also not apply to either cable or radio, which makes the politicians who want to use it by citing talk radio or Fox News even more moronic. As it existed, the Fairness Doctrine applied only to broadcast networks - however, some Democrats have advocated that it be expanded, including to the Internet so blogs are "equal," because those people are morons who don't understand the Internet.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  13. #28
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    LOL yes, sure because politicians are sooo good about always thinking about consequences. And we've recently seen how great the Dems are about thinking ahead.

    I will say this: the pols are smart enough that not one of them has ever seriously proposed bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. They give lip service to it, sure, but then half of them back pedal and retract their comments and none has ever made even a half-assed attempt to do anything about it. They know it would bite them in the ass: the majority of people polled are against it, Obama is against it, along with every news organization and advertisers, who have bucks big enough that before the ink was dry there would be about a dozen lawsuits. No politician is going to stick their neck out to support something with so little support and would bring tons of bad PR and that, in exchange, has no benefit.
    Liberals have not retracted their comments from what I have found. In addition, when the doctrine was rescinded by Reagan, Congress did attempt to bring it back, but Reagan vetoed it, and when they tried again under George H.W. Bush, Bush threatened a veto.

    Conservatives, however, have tried to introduce multiple "acts" to prevent the doctrine from being reinstated. I have yet to see any news organizations (outside of Fox or a Limbaugh station) that has been supportive of these acts to prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

    There would probably not be a dozen lawsuits if the Fairness Doctrine were brought back since the Supreme Court recognized the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in 1969.

  14. #29
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    liberals should try and have a successful radio show of their own that can compete on that level
    Grimm, I see a new career in your future....the anti-Rush!

  15. #30
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "commentators". Are these hosts or co-hosts? Or just people who are solicited from time to time to give the official "liberal side"?

    I mean the people solicited from time to time like Marc Lamont Hill on O'Reilly show and regulars like Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday.


    Would it make a difference if an actual opposing liberal (not handpicked by Fox) appeared with a counter response? Of course it would. First, it would
    interrupt the incredibly one-sided politicking by FoxNews. Second, it would
    create some cognitive dissonance in the few regular viewers who haven't had their brains destroyed yet. For people who believe in some truth, there is no downside to the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
    I was under the impression that a network like Fox would do the picking not some outside authority.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 112
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 06:36 PM
  2. What it takes for Ann Coulter to shut up-jaw wired shut?
    By twitchy2.0 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 25th, 2008, 11:32 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: September 8th, 2008, 10:45 PM
  4. News of the Weird on MSNBC
    By Moongirl in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 12th, 2008, 02:20 PM
  5. MSNBC edits their news to favor Bush cabal
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 15th, 2006, 01:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •