Comments on: Rasmussen poll on Fairness Doctrine: 41-41

By: Freelancer

Freelancer — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:14:43 +0000

After all, how could anyone be opposed to anything with the word “fairness” in it? jihadwatcher on July 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM

The first method of insinuating any socialist doctrine into a free society is the use of the word FAIR, or FAIRNESS, in describing said doctrine. This is meant to disguise an otherwise obviously totalitarian method using a guilt response. Nobody wishes to be thought of as UNFAIR, and will sometimes thoughtlessly agree with an otherwise BAD concept if they believe opposing it makes them UNFAIR. Other major socialist codewords include the aforementioned PROGRESSIVE, UNIVERSAL, PEOPLE'S, WORKER'S, etc. The only recent application of FAIR that I am aware of which is not a promotion of socialist doctrine is the Fair Tax

By: Christine

Christine — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:46:50 +0000

It should be: ‘what people meant’.

By: Christine

Christine — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:46:02 +0000

This is enough to explode my brain, not because of what might happen to sites like this and talk radio, but what the people mean when they participated in this poll.
I let it go when i thought, (logically), that the way the question was posed it meant that perhaps conservatives want a balanced format on TV news—which SHOULD be the purpose of the ‘fairness doctrine’. Some of the idiots on the left and the RINOS want to get rid of talk radio and free speech online, but that won’t happen–until the Clinton regime continues with the construction of their Brave New World.

By: petefrt

petefrt — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:04:50 +0000

It’s profoundly disturbing that Stalinist measures such as the FD can be openly advocated by anyone, especially anyone in Congress.

It’s even more disturbing that it’s advocacy isn’t overwhelmingly repudiated.

By: unseen

unseen — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 04:33:09 +0000

Purple Fury on July 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM

How about the Stalin admendment?

By: BacaDog

BacaDog — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 03:23:08 +0000

TruthToBeTold on July 14, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Right. That’s why we absolutely must insist that if they want to bring this back, it will need to apply to print, cable, broadcast TV, radio and internet. No form of media should be exempt.

Once those dimwits at the NYT realize they’ll have to draw a big black line down the middle of their page so we can have 1/2, they’ll put so much pressure on Dingy Harry and Nancy it’ll die a quick death.

By: BacaDog

BacaDog — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 03:17:15 +0000

I can’t wait to see Ann Coulter rebut Katie on the CBS evening news.

This might be a good thing. ///sarc

By: krabbas

krabbas — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:19:04 +0000

Isn’t this the stuff the ACLU should be concerned with?

By: The Unabrewer

The Unabrewer — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:04:25 +0000

Then again, “Fairness Doctrine” is already Orwellian.

By: Fairness Doctrin and Rasmussen Poll - EQUALLY SCARY : 186kpersecond.com

Fairness Doctrin and Rasmussen Poll - EQUALLY SCARY : 186kpersecond.com — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:44:36 +0000

[...] Better Blogs BloggingHotAirTechnorati Tags: polls, democrats, progressives, fairness doctrine [...]

By: The Unabrewer

The Unabrewer — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:42:20 +0000

I recommend the term “Monitored Broadcasting” to replace “Fairness Doctrine”. Has a slight Orwellian subtlety to it. Never tells you who is doing the monitoring or why, but it’s certainly implied.

By: Kensington

Kensington — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:39:11 +0000

You didn’t think I meant that seriously, I hope.

Why not? Progressive Doctrine is closer to the truth of it than the Fairness Doctrine. I just don’t think it’s quite close enough.

By: Entelechy

Entelechy — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:33:04 +0000

Kensington on July 14, 2007 at 5:24 PM

You didn’t think I meant that seriously, I hope.

By: BigOrangeAxe

BigOrangeAxe — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:51 +0000

OK, so let me get this straight. Liberals think that once child porn is on the internet, the government shouldn't be able to do anything about it (i.e., it's "free speech). But, on the other hand, they think that once a conservative puts an opinion on the internet, the government SHOULD be able to do something about it (e.g., balance it with some left-wing whacko). Liberals. Hypocrites. Google it.

By: TruthToBeTold

TruthToBeTold — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:54:55 +0000

The problem is not that all viewpoints will have to be represented, but that due to the HASSLE of having to track the exact amount of time for each viewpoint, radio stations will just not present ANY VIEWPOINTS at all. That way they cut out all the paperwork requirements and save tons of money. Since radio is the medium used most successfully by conservatives, conservatives will SILENCED on radio. I’m not talking about possibilities, I know that this is what happened between 1949 and 1994 when the “Fairness Doctrine” was halted. Radio didn’t broadcast political viewpoints and thus avoided all kinds of undesirable events. They didn’t violate the “Fairness Doctrine” because if you don’t do political viewpoints the FD doesn’t apply. They avoided lawsuits by people who would have claimed that their viewpoint didn’t get “equal time”. They didn’t have to hire one or more employees whose only job would have been to track the amount of time one viewpoint got and then make sure that all other viewpoints got “equal time”. Any businessman would do the same thing and NOT touch that “live wire” with a ten foot pole. If the “Fairness Doctrine” is resurrected, there WON’T BE any talk radio. We’ll get music 24/7/365 on FM and AM may just shut down completely because the quality of music is better on FM.

By: Blog-o-Fascists

Blog-o-Fascists — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:30:06 +0000

Careful With That Rasmussen Fairness Doctrine Poll…

Riehl World View

I can understand the Gulp! reaction to news that a Rasmussen poll claims the American public is split on the Fairness Doctrine 41% – 41%. That’s true. But the prism through which you view that number makes a big difference. And there…

By: Kensington

Kensington — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:24:49 +0000

I move to call it “The Progressive Doctrine”.

Entelechy on July 14, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Better, but it still runs the risk of being approved by idiots who don’t understand what “progressive” really means. Call it what it is: The Leftist Authoritarian Doctrine”

By: Kralizec

Kralizec — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:19:45 +0000

Fatwa works so well for Islam that one can't help noticing and appropriating it for the aid of one's own kind. Therefore: Taking away or even encumbering our free exercise of rights of speech, press, and assembly is haram, forbidden, and whoever attempts it is murtad, apostate, traitor. I don't know about you, but I feel better already.

By: PowWow

PowWow — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:50:43 +0000

Better than what we have now, nothing…just saying. But this is worst case. I am completely opposed to the FD. Just wanted to be clear

By: PowWow

PowWow — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:48:44 +0000

Problem is what the MSM considers conservative, is hardly a true conservative opinion. We would need to fight to get our real conservatives on the air with Olby, Matthews and the like. Example: Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who is considered by many to be a true hardline conservative. She hardly represents all of my “views.” While she did a valiant job with RosieO, many times stupidity that flowed from RO was not answered by fact from Lis. I know she’s not a newsperson, but that’s what passes for a real conservative opinion to a lot of people. While great to look at, I don’t want someone like her to be my answer to Olby

By: SIJ6141

SIJ6141 — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:41:31 +0000

Problem is they will describe those zealots (Mathews/Olberman) as moderates and demand that spokesman for Hamas, Hezbola and AQ get a voice.

By: Michael in MI

Michael in MI — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:15:39 +0000

Whenever I see this debate about the Fairness Doctrine, not enough people stress what TRUE “fairness” would have to be. People seem to think that “fairness” is making sure the “right” and the “left” have equal time, as if the only opinions out there are “right” and “left”. But this is not the case…

We must also give equal time to the opinions of Communists, White Supremacists, Black Supremacists, Libertarians, Terrorist organizations, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, Pro-Abortion/Anti-Abortion groups on abortion issues, pro-illegal immigration/anti-illegal immigration groups on immigration issues as well as pro-reconquista groups, Hamas and Hezb’Allah supporting groups, every single religious group out there including radical Atheists who would like to strip the United States of every aspect of its religious heritage, etc etc etc ad naseum…

Which makes me wonder whether or not those who support “fairness” realize this or not. If they don’t, they are naieve. If they do, then that means they realize that holding certain media outlets to a standard of “fairness”, it will completely dilute those outlets and the message will be completely lost, since so many different viewpoints, including radical conspiracies and those from radical interest groups such as CAIR and Hamas and Hezb’Allah, will be given equal time and, as a result, equal credibility.

Meanwhile, the MSM will be free to continue to propagandize their special interests.

By: duff65

duff65 — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:15:37 +0000

It would be worth the price of admission if they tried to impose the “fairness doctrine” across the board to include the print media, network TV, cable TV as well as talk radio. The screams of First Amendment violation would be unbelievable.

By: portlandbob

portlandbob — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:15:26 +0000

I find it interesting that the airwaves are considered to “belong to the people.” This term is crap, and came up time and time again during my years as a broadcaster. It is a false premise designed to lend sympathy to content control.

The only interest the government has regarding airwaves is traffic control…making sure that there is proper frequency separation across the bands. As long as technical rules are followed, sending my electrons with my content across the sky is my business.

The equipment is privately owned. The content is privately generated. There is NO reason for government to be involved when it comes to regulation of content. NO REASON.

The liberal mantra of “turn it off”, or “change the channel” applies to all content offensive to the viewer or listener.

But that is asking too much of the Animal Farm.

By: Vanquisher

Vanquisher — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:46:54 +0000

I bet they got this idea from their buddy Hugo- isn’t that
what he is doing down in Venezuela? I can’t wait for conservatives to have their say after Keith and Chris have their 30 minute diatribe of “I hate America and every conservative that lives here.” It’s about time we get equal time on all the mainstream media. /I hope it doesn’t put Rush out of business though./