Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58

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

  1. #31
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    I was under the impression that a network like Fox would do the picking not some outside authority.
    Yeah, they already do that. They either pick a radical controversial liberal or some yahoo who doesn't know what he's talking about, and then they eviscerate the "liberal" on air. They make liberals out to be dangerous radicals with out-there views or complete idiots.

    They wouldn't dare put someone like Rachel Maddow on their programs because she's too reasonable and smart and it destroys their facade. Can't have all those old men in barcoloungers watching thinking that woman sounds smart and she actually makes sense.

  2. #32
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,423

    Default

    Fox picks liberals who "play along". That is, they don't question that 1) the whole segment has been fixed from the beginning. 2) They are questioned by a host who has an agenda, and who sides with the conservative commentator. 3) The conservative talks so much longer, it's essentially a fillibuster. And 4) the segment itself is cushioned by programming or segments that are entirely conservative with their message.

    An honest liberal would basically get on the air and say, "Who the hell are we kidding with this network? It's a sick joke of a channel owned by an arch-conservative billionaire (Murdoch) and run by a President (Ailes) with 30 years Republican operative experience who continues to make comments like 'NPR are Nazis.'"

  3. #33
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Well is it really "playing"? Intelligent viewers know the deal, and commentators like the ones I mentioned don't just tow the line while the pundits spout ignorance. But how much voice they're given usually depends on the program and the subject matter. Fox does use liberals are strawmen sometimes and are eager to misinterpret views as things more inane or radical than they appear to be. So how would the Fairness Doctrine curb something like that?

  4. #34
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    Fox does use liberals are strawmen sometimes and are eager to misinterpret views as things more inane or radical than they appear to be. So how would the Fairness Doctrine curb something like that?
    It wouldn't, since the Fairness Doctrine only applies to broadcast networks. They'd have to rewrite and expand it.

    It's a stupid and basically unenforcable policy anyway. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative and who you get your news from. I know just as many people whose only news source is the DailyKos as people who watch Fox News. But why is it anyone else's business what people want to watch, read or view? You're not going to do anything to change their views by forcing opposition down their throat - you're just going to make them dig in their heels and become even more radical.

    I hate the view that the poor plebes need to be saved from themselves. Fuck that. Concern yourself with your own education, vote, become involved in your community if you want to counter the opposing viewpoint. Don't bitch as if you're come down from on high and other people are too stupid to live if they disagree with you. If you can't debate the opposing viewpoint without trying to silence them then your argument is weaker than you think. Don't like Fox News? Don't watch it. Don't like MSNBC? Don't watch it. If no one watched, neither channel would be successful. The fact that they are means that they have an audience of people who want to watch their product and that's not going to change if you play nanny and force everybody to take their nice medicine like good boys and girls.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  5. #35
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    There should be a doctrine that enforces FACTUAL NEWS.

    Just fact. Investigative journalism that reports what's actually going on.. rather than superficial investigation (that results in merely repeating what someone else says) and non stop spin spin spin.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  6. #36
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    15,036

    Default

    Network News is largely fact. And no one watches it.

  7. #37
    Gold Member BigBen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    ^Exactly. There's real news out there, but people don't like it. It's either too sad/realistic or it clashes with their own worldview so they just ignore it. The fact that Fox and MSNBC are so popular should really tell you what people in general want: a lot of sensationalist gobbledygook coming from their own camp. It makes them feel good, it affirms their personal beliefs, and unfortunately it creates a huge chasm between parties. I don't think something like the Fairness Doctrine would fight that because at the end of the day, people want it too badly. I don't like that, but I don't know what would work against it.
    "Not only do we embrace it, we take it out for drinks, get it absolutely steaming drunk, leg hump it and then leave it covered in shaving foam and a stolen Chuck E Cheese outfit in its own bath with no recollection of how it got there." -Kittylady on the sad and pathetic and strange.

  8. #38
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    There is always your local news, the CBS Evening News, NBC News, ABC News, Nightline & 60 Minutes if you want factual stuff. And 60 Minutes and Nightline, at least, are still going strong even if the network news isn't. There's also the Internet where anyone can read the AP wire, just about any newspaper or magazine in the world, etc.

    The fact is that some people want to come home at the end of the end, turn on the TV and kill a few brain cells. Watching Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc. (neither of whom, BTW, claim to be news broadcasters) rant is entertaining to some. Not to me - but then I watch Celebrity Rehab so I have no room to talk. I also like 60 Minutes and grew up watching it and follow the news religiously, but for Christ's sake I don't want to be fucking serious all the time and treat everything like it's the Oxford Union.

    I know a lot of people that don't care about current events and don't follow the news at all - I don't get it, but I'm not them! It's none of my business. If they want the news, they can turn on about 4 daily local news broadcasts or one of three nightly network news broadcasts. Or read the fucking paper.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  9. #39
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Local news is still full of fluff, and issues aren't always explored on depth. They've also shifted to include more opinion based reporting(probably to compete with cable news). There's very few facts and a whole lot of garbage.

    BBC news tends to be better overall.

  10. #40
    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
    BBC news tends to be better overall.
    I agree with that. I get BBC News on my Sirius satellite receiver, and it is very neutral and factual. With a lot more depth and time spent on stories.

    Going back to the Fairness Doctrine:

    If the Fairness Doctrine were really unenforceable, there wouldn't have been lawsuits to try to stop it (Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC 1969). Because you don't need to spend the effort and money to bring a suit against something that is unenforceable. And the lawsuit, when the plaintiff lost, served to straighten out the idea of whether it would be found constitutional or not. And the Supreme Court's finding was that it was constitutional.

    The idea of the Doctrine isn't to stop somebody from having the right to speak, but rather whether someone would be granted free airtime to respond. If the act, or the possibility of it returning is so non-threatening, you would not have conservative broadcasters, and their congressional allies absolutely pissing their pants every time the topic is brought up.

  11. #41
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Um yeah, having watched "factual" american network "news" I can assure you that one, it's not factual, and two, it's so spun and biased you have really no idea how you're spoonfed the point of view they want you to have.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #42
    Gold Member BigBen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    Honestly, I think there would have to basically be an overhaul of the entire American news system before any of this shit would work. If every news source is so blatantly biased, then the Fairness Doctrine won't do a bit of good because there will just be bias on both sides. I think there should be something set up where newscasters are required (contractually, by law, whatever) to report facts without bias. This would also be hard to enforce, but simply allowing for debate rather than hearing one side won't do anybody any good if the debate is being spun on both sides.

    Does that make sense? It's late (or early lol) and grad school has fried my brain.
    "Not only do we embrace it, we take it out for drinks, get it absolutely steaming drunk, leg hump it and then leave it covered in shaving foam and a stolen Chuck E Cheese outfit in its own bath with no recollection of how it got there." -Kittylady on the sad and pathetic and strange.

  13. #43
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    The idea of the Doctrine isn't to stop somebody from having the right to speak, but rather whether someone would be granted free airtime to respond.
    First off, there's already an Equal Time rule which works nicely regarding something that actually matters, elected officials. Second, there is really no such thing as "free airtime" anymore. The FD was abolished in 1987 and it was created in the 1940's, when no one could conceive of the media world we have today and the landscape of TV, with its hundreds of channels and the incredible power of consumers to pick and choose their own shows and services. No one is largely restricted to watching the same channels as everyone else anymore. In fact, tons of TV watchers are not even restricted to the TV, being able to stream or buy whatever content they want on their computers or to edit the content the way they want on their DVRs. THAT'S why the FD is absolutely useless, because as it is written it would only affect things that are already absolutely struggling.

    And why should someone be forced to have a rebuttal on their profit making show, which is making profits in the first place because they're attracting viewers just the way it is? None of the shows cited, and certainly not MSNBC or Fox, put their stuff on for free. In fact, you have to shell out your own money if you want to see either Fox or MSNBC. They are not free channels and if you don't like them, don't subscribe and don't watch. It's not rocket science. They make it very clear what their product is. The options are to not buy it, or to make a better product. Regulating people's opinions never works.

    If the act, or the possibility of it returning is so non-threatening, you would not have conservative broadcasters, and their congressional allies absolutely pissing their pants every time the topic is brought up.
    So what? Democrats trot it out as a way to silence the cable networks and talk radio, neither of which would be subject to the Fairness Doctrine even if it did reappear. It just shows that both sides are asinine. See the very title of this thread, where a senator wants to use the FD on two pay cable channels that would not by covered by the FD in the first place.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  14. #44
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    First off, there's already an Equal Time rule which works nicely regarding something that actually matters, elected officials
    Tell that to the debates every election.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  15. #45
    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
    First off, there's already an Equal Time rule which works nicely regarding something that actually matters, elected officials.
    That's what you think that matters. However, other people think that news channels basically lying 24x7 lying about another political party matters. Which is the kind of thing that the Fairness Doctrine would ameliorate.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    No one is largely restricted to watching the same channels as everyone else anymore. In fact, tons of TV watchers are not even restricted to the TV, being able to stream or buy whatever content they want on their computers or to edit the content the way they want on their DVRs. THAT'S why the FD is absolutely useless, because as it is written it would only affect things that are already absolutely struggling.
    No one was restricted to watching a particular channel then, and no one is now. However certain people, especially elderly, and brain-addled older people, who are very reliable voters, tune to FoxNews as their only source of news, and when they are in the car, they are listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, et. al. (which are heard on FCC-regulated radio spectrum). As I said earlier, if the people who were either watching, or listening to these channels, heard a rebuttal, it would begin to balance out the totally egregious one-sided crap that they currently hearing.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    And why should someone be forced to have a rebuttal on their profit making show, which is making profits in the first place because they're attracting viewers just the way it is? None of the shows cited, and certainly not MSNBC or Fox, put their stuff on for free. In fact, you have to shell out your own money if you want to see either Fox or MSNBC. They are not free channels and if you don't like them, don't subscribe and don't watch. It's not rocket science. They make it very clear what their product is. The options are to not buy it, or to make a better product. Regulating people's opinions never works.
    Profit-making has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, or whether someone has prevented factual news. ABC/CBS/NBC, were profit-making entities when FD was in place. The fact that people pay for FoxNews on cable or on Sirius does not exempt them from being regulated by the FCC either. SiriusXM broadcasts in the WCS (2320-2345 MHz) spectrum, entitling the FCC to regulate satellite companies under the same auspices that it regulates AM/FM broadcasting stations. And the FCC's jurisdiction over cable TV was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1968.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    So what? Democrats trot it out as a way to silence the cable networks and talk radio, neither of which would be subject to the Fairness Doctrine even if it did reappear. It just shows that both sides are asinine. See the very title of this thread, where a senator wants to use the FD on two pay cable channels that would not by covered by the FD in the first place.
    Democrats (with the exception of Rockefeller) do not trot out the Fairness Doctrine as a way to silence either cable networks or talk radio, but rather to create a window to allow a dissenting voice from the other side. Only the networks themselves, or yammering conservative crybabies complain that this will put them out of business, which is absurd. And as I said before, there are already Supreme Court opinions and regulatory statutes and precedents in place that would allow the FD to be exercised over cable and talk radio. The only thing left is the will to put it in place.

Page 3 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
  •