The Fairness Doctrine

polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
edited June 2011 in A Moving Train
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

since Reagan had this repealed ... it basically was the foundation of the christian right movement in media ... ie am talk radio and fox news ...

facts and truth went by way of the do do bird and misleading partisan mistruths became the norm ...
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    polaris_x wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

    since Reagan had this repealed ... it basically was the foundation of the christian right movement in media ... ie am talk radio and fox news ...

    facts and truth went by way of the do do bird and misleading partisan mistruths became the norm ...


    partisan half-truths were always the norm. No one is stopping liberals from having a radio station except liberals. Guys like Michael Medved and Jason Lewis are pretty damn factual.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    polaris_x wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

    since Reagan had this repealed ... it basically was the foundation of the christian right movement in media ... ie am talk radio and fox news ...

    facts and truth went by way of the do do bird and misleading partisan mistruths became the norm ...

    NPR has no bias and has never mislead, right? haha. Come on. And, remember, that is our tax money at work!

    The shows you are referring to, to my knowledge, receive no government money. They should be allowed to speak about what they wish. If there's a demand for it, like Fox or right-leaning talk radio, the programs will stay. If there's no demand for it, like Air America, they will die.

    Anyway, the government has better things to do... like shrink and get out of peoples business.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • ParachuteParachute Posts: 409
    inlet13 wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

    since Reagan had this repealed ... it basically was the foundation of the christian right movement in media ... ie am talk radio and fox news ...

    facts and truth went by way of the do do bird and misleading partisan mistruths became the norm ...

    NPR has no bias and has never mislead, right? haha. Come on. And, remember, that is our tax money at work!

    The shows you are referring to, to my knowledge, receive no government money. They should be allowed to speak about what they wish. If there's a demand for it, like Fox or right-leaning talk radio, the programs will stay. If there's no demand for it, like Air America, they will die.

    Anyway, the government has better things to do... like shrink and get out of peoples business.


    agreed.
  • inlet13 wrote:
    NPR has no bias and has never mislead, right? haha. Come on. And, remember, that is our tax money at work!

    There's very little tax money that goes into that. I could tit-for-tat the huge amounts of money that go to things like a "creationist museum" or a Noah's Ark theme park.

    That said... my husband listens to NPR relentlessly... drives me nuts. But I listen to it when he's driving and I don't really hear a "liberal bias" at all. If anything, most of the stories are dull as dust and the few political ones don't really seem to take sides at all.

    Anyway, the government has better things to do... like shrink and get out of peoples business.

    I've always wondered just what that means... what businesses are they in that they need to get out of?

    And I'm actually asking that... what would you like to see the government get out of?
  • ParachuteParachute Posts: 409
    inlet13 wrote:
    NPR has no bias and has never mislead, right? haha. Come on. And, remember, that is our tax money at work!

    There's very little tax money that goes into that. I could tit-for-tat the huge amounts of money that go to things like a "creationist museum" or a Noah's Ark theme park.

    That said... my husband listens to NPR relentlessly... drives me nuts. But I listen to it when he's driving and I don't really hear a "liberal bias" at all. If anything, most of the stories are dull as dust and the few political ones don't really seem to take sides at all.

    Anyway, the government has better things to do... like shrink and get out of peoples business.

    I've always wondered just what that means... what businesses are they in that they need to get out of?

    And I'm actually asking that... what would you like to see the government get out of?


    Glad to hear you finally got to marry a dude.

    Will you quit talking about it- and putting down Christianity- in every damn post you make.

    You really are a narrow-minded-bore.
  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290
    inlet13 wrote:
    NPR has no bias and has never mislead, right? haha. Come on. And, remember, that is our tax money at work!

    There's very little tax money that goes into that. I could tit-for-tat the huge amounts of money that go to things like a "creationist museum" or a Noah's Ark theme park.

    That said... my husband listens to NPR relentlessly... drives me nuts. But I listen to it when he's driving and I don't really hear a "liberal bias" at all. If anything, most of the stories are dull as dust and the few political ones don't really seem to take sides at all.

    Anyway, the government has better things to do... like shrink and get out of peoples business.

    I've always wondered just what that means... what businesses are they in that they need to get out of?

    And I'm actually asking that... what would you like to see the government get out of?

    The constitution gave the federal government the authority for 17 things... they are acting just a wee bit outside of their bounds.

    Marriage?
    Drugs?
    Education?

    I can keep going...
  • Parachute wrote:
    Glad to hear you finally got to marry a dude.

    Finally? We're Canadian, we got married like 7 years ago. Been together for 19. But thanks.
    Will you quit talking about it- and putting down Christianity- in every damn post you make.

    When a rather large majority of Christians stop passing laws to take away my family's rights, I'll be MORE than happy to never talk about it again. Deal?
    You really are a narrow-minded-bore.

    Hm. Says the guy who's against gay marriage because it's in a book that was written a few thousand years ago to think that.
  • bgivens33 wrote:
    Marriage?
    Drugs?
    Education?

    I can keep going...

    No.. those are good starts. There's a place we can at least try to meet in the middle. When you say "stay out of marriage," there's a place that hits home for me. So... the government doesn't recognize marriage at all and it's just something that any couple can do and it's just a word? Churches decide who they'll perform ceremonies for... Elvis impersonators do the rest?

    (I'm not even trying to be a smart-ass here, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "get out of marriage.")

    Drugs... totally agree. The way alcohol is abused but legal and seeing what medical marijuana did for friends of mine with cancer and late-stage HIV, that's something I agree with... but.. you think no controls at all? Just.. let the people do what drugs they want to do with no regulations? How could that work?

    (again, I mean this.. not trying to "gotchya question" you)

    Education...

    That idea scares me a bit. You mean have no public schools at all? That's not something I'd support. I think it's in our best interest to raise the next generation to be able to think and communicate and live in the world.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    inlet13 wrote:
    NPR has no bias and has never mislead, right? haha. Come on. And, remember, that is our tax money at work!

    The shows you are referring to, to my knowledge, receive no government money. They should be allowed to speak about what they wish. If there's a demand for it, like Fox or right-leaning talk radio, the programs will stay. If there's no demand for it, like Air America, they will die.

    Anyway, the government has better things to do... like shrink and get out of peoples business.

    well ... it depends on what you consider to be biases ... as a non-believer in global warming, i suspect your definition of bias is for lack of a better word ... biased ... haha

    air america had better ratings than all of its competitor shows ... the failure in air america was not in listeners, it was in sponsorship dollars ... the big multi-national corporations that spend the most on advertising wouldn't touch air america ... that was the problem, not listeners ...
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    bgivens33 wrote:
    Marriage?
    Drugs?
    Education?

    I can keep going...

    No.. those are good starts. There's a place we can at least try to meet in the middle. When you say "stay out of marriage," there's a place that hits home for me. So... the government doesn't recognize marriage at all and it's just something that any couple can do and it's just a word? Churches decide who they'll perform ceremonies for... Elvis impersonators do the rest?

    (I'm not even trying to be a smart-ass here, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "get out of marriage.")

    Drugs... totally agree. The way alcohol is abused but legal and seeing what medical marijuana did for friends of mine with cancer and late-stage HIV, that's something I agree with... but.. you think no controls at all? Just.. let the people do what drugs they want to do with no regulations? How could that work?

    (again, I mean this.. not trying to "gotchya question" you)

    Education...

    That idea scares me a bit. You mean have no public schools at all? That's not something I'd support. I think it's in our best interest to raise the next generation to be able to think and communicate and live in the world.

    :clap:

    You're making way too much sense here POD...I predict another personal attack coming your way.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    The unprovoked attack on Elvis Impersonators is a little out of line.
  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290
    bgivens33 wrote:
    Marriage?
    Drugs?
    Education?

    I can keep going...

    No.. those are good starts. There's a place we can at least try to meet in the middle. When you say "stay out of marriage," there's a place that hits home for me. So... the government doesn't recognize marriage at all and it's just something that any couple can do and it's just a word? Churches decide who they'll perform ceremonies for... Elvis impersonators do the rest?

    (I'm not even trying to be a smart-ass here, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "get out of marriage.")

    Drugs... totally agree. The way alcohol is abused but legal and seeing what medical marijuana did for friends of mine with cancer and late-stage HIV, that's something I agree with... but.. you think no controls at all? Just.. let the people do what drugs they want to do with no regulations? How could that work?

    (again, I mean this.. not trying to "gotchya question" you)

    Education...

    That idea scares me a bit. You mean have no public schools at all? That's not something I'd support. I think it's in our best interest to raise the next generation to be able to think and communicate and live in the world.

    I should have been a bit more clear... I was directing that at the federal government. The states can really do as they please.

    My vague point was that the Constitution is a restriction put on the federal government. It designates the ability of the federal government to do a handful of different things and disallowing the states to do the same things, and the rest are rights reserved to the states. And I think the federal government has grossly overstepped their bounds.
  • bgivens33 wrote:
    I should have been a bit more clear... I was directing that at the federal government. The states can really do as they please.

    Ok that makes a bit more sense to me.

    But how do we handle things like immigration rights?

    For instance... My husband and I are Canadian but I also have American citizenship. He's here on a T1 Visa (covered by NAFTA.. he's an architect) and we've hired an immigration lawyer to start the process for him to stay here permanently. It's going to take about 5 years and cost us tens of thousands of dollars. If we were a straight couple, he would get a green card and that would be that. But that's a federal thing.

    Many people ask us why we should care about marriage at all.. why we can't just "live together."

    But a marriage isn't just "living together"... there are over 1500 special rights, privileges, protections, responsibilities and resources that come with marriage and the VAST majority of them are at the national level. So even if we lived in a State where our marriage was legally recognized, we wouldn't get access to those resources. Things like pensions and immigration rights, tax breaks, inheritance, power of attorney... If the federal government gets out of marriage... who handles those things that kinda have to be done at a national level? The states can't issue green cards.
    My vague point was that the Constitution is a restriction put on the federal government. It designates the ability of the federal government to do a handful of different things and disallowing the states to do the same things, and the rest are rights reserved to the states. And I think the federal government has grossly overstepped their bounds.

    That's true. But the world we live in is very different than the world where the constitution was written. Back then if you wanted to move to America... you ... well, you just got on a boat and came here. Green cards didn't exist and neither did the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    There weren't drug cartels like there are now... there wasn't an internet and it was much easier to educate kids to grow and live in their own communities.

    It's possible that I don't get it, but I can't see how laws written over 200 years ago can be relevant to our 21st century world.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    bgivens33 wrote:
    I should have been a bit more clear... I was directing that at the federal government. The states can really do as they please.

    Ok that makes a bit more sense to me.

    But how do we handle things like immigration rights?

    For instance... My husband and I are Canadian but I also have American citizenship. He's here on a T1 Visa (covered by NAFTA.. he's an architect) and we've hired an immigration lawyer to start the process for him to stay here permanently. It's going to take about 5 years and cost us tens of thousands of dollars. If we were a straight couple, he would get a green card and that would be that. But that's a federal thing.

    I seriously hope your marriage is recognized one day in the US, and Cali.. and it pains me to see all the hoops you have to jump through and money you have to pay. Its really ridiculous.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • markin ballmarkin ball Posts: 1,075
    inlet13 wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

    since Reagan had this repealed ... it basically was the foundation of the christian right movement in media ... ie am talk radio and fox news ...

    facts and truth went by way of the do do bird and misleading partisan mistruths became the norm ...

    NPR has no bias and has never mislead, right? haha. Come on. And, remember, that is our tax money at work!

    The shows you are referring to, to my knowledge, receive no government money. They should be allowed to speak about what they wish. If there's a demand for it, like Fox or right-leaning talk radio, the programs will stay. If there's no demand for it, like Air America, they will die.

    Anyway, the government has better things to do... like shrink and get out of peoples business.

    Can you show me an example of NPR bias, please?
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • Can you show me an example of NPR bias, please?

    Listen to "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me."
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,495
    we've hired an immigration lawyer to start the process for him to stay here permanently. It's going to take about 5 years and cost us tens of thousands of dollars. If we were a straight couple, he would get a green card and that would be that. But that's a federal thing.


    Yeah, that is crazy. Good luck to you.
    hippiemom = goodness
Sign In or Register to comment.