BF2S Forums Plan to Restore Fairness Doctrine

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

But you pass it off as being "assumed."  I call it failure on the lib part, not assumption by the public.

I see perception as one of the primary determinants of a product's success.  This is why advertising is so important.  I'd never even heard of Air America until it was well into its broadcasting.  It would seem that they didn't advertise well enough to draw in their market.

Now, it's quite possible that Franken, Garofalo, and co. just didn't provide interesting material either.  I wouldn't know, because again, I didn't listen to it.

But to say there isn't a market for liberal commentary is rather....  unobservant.  If that was true, then Michael Moore would be as poor as he dresses.

usmarine2005 wrote:

So why doesn't America want to listen to liberal radio?

Don't give me that market BS Turq.  Sat radio, internet, pod cast, mp3, etc.

lowing wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

So why doesn't America want to listen to liberal radio?

Don't give me that market BS Turq.  Sat radio, internet, pod cast, mp3, etc.

The reason is, is because liberal ideology in America can not hold up to scrutiny. It simply can not be defended when challenged. Conservative talk shows have their opinions on a topic and can back them up. Air America couldn't. No credibility no listeners.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

So why doesn't America want to listen to liberal radio?

Don't give me that market BS Turq.  Sat radio, internet, pod cast, mp3, etc.

The reason is, is because liberal ideology in America can not hold up to scrutiny. It simply can not be defended when challenged. Conservative talk shows have their opinions on a topic and can back them up. Air America couldn't. No credibility no listeners.

Or maybe it's because Liberal listeners don't need to have their opinions handed to them like good little children taking orders.

And declaring that a single station represents the whole of Liberal ideology in the US is................foolish, to say the least.

lowing wrote:

Yes, I know, "liberal listeners" in itself is an oxymoron. Liberals form their opinions based on ANYTHING other than the facts of an issue. Gathering around a campfire and singing Kumbaya, has rarely solved anything.

RedTwizzler wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

CNN wrote:

Liberal efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine are "completely on track," and Democrats intend to push for the measure by linking talk radio to "hate crimes," according to a conservative media analyst.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has proposed an amendment to appropriations legislation to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from spending any money in 2008 to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Personally, I think this whole fairness doctrine is bullshit. They want to stop talk radio because conservatives own the airways. Fairness doctrine is codename for goverment control of free speech.

Discuss

But the Patriot Act is cool.


-_-

oug wrote:

I think RedTwizzler was being sarcastic...

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If you don't think liberalism can be defended, try me.  Throw me a liberal viewpoint, and I'll defend it -- as long as it's one of the liberal viewpoints I personally agree with.

I'll admit that I personally am against affirmative action, this fairness doctrine thing, social security, and further gun restrictions.  Throw me any other liberal issues, and I'll defend them with solid logic. 

Why would I need to do that? Al Franken, the cornerstone of Air America couldn't hold it together, I think the point has long been proven.

If it's already been proven, then why hesitate to challenge me?  Surely, the "proof" you have could defeat anything I have to say, but the only way to "prove" that is to accept the challenge... 

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

I'm really not surprised that right-wingers are bitching and whining about something good ol' St. Reagan the Vegetable did away with possibly coming back. What it seems to amount to is "Hah, you librulz need help from the government because you can't compete in a game we made up all the rules for!". And seriously, right-wing talk shows actually defend their opinions? From who? From each other, in one of their typical "This is a good idea for America so liberals hate it!" followed by "Mhmm, yes, quite right." circle jerks? From the occasional punching-bag liberal they invite on the show and then cut off, talk over or shout down? From their carefully screened callers? Please. What they engage in isn't debate, it's a bully pulpit. Any time they get caught outside their own guarded formats all they can do is either blabber uncontrollably like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar or they continue to repeat the same drivel over and over as if that'll lend it additional weight, like when Ann Coulter continued to claim that Canada had sent troops to Vietnam despite being told repeatedly that it just wasn't so.

The reason for all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is all-too transparent. Right-wing pundits like having the field to themselves and it shows in both their preferred show formats and their dealings with the media market. In their show formats, only they are permitted to have a voice, usually a start-to-finish monologue with occasional hand-picked voices of agreement. Other voices are either excluded, selected specifically for the outrageousness or ridiculousness of the speaker, taken out of context or stepped all over when they even try to mount a counter-argument. In the media, they're given time by major media outlets sympathetic to their voice, sponsored by corporations that agree with their views and have actually built a persistent myth of a monolithic and powerful "Liberal Media" that shows no signs of existing in the real world.

Plain and simple, like any other cowardly bullies, they like it better when nobody hits back. That spoils the fun. This is why Ann Coulter walks out on (or starts pathetically calling for Sean Hannity to back her up in) interviews she's not in control of. This is why Rush Limbaugh doesn't have guests on his show to give another side of an issue. This is why Bill O'Reilly cuts off the microphones of guests he can't refute.

Oh and lowing, if you wanna talk about the conservative love for facts, maybe you can tell us all the logical process that causes them to arrive at facts like "Homosexuality can be cured", "Volcanoes and trees cause more pollution than industry", "Hitler was a leftist environmentalist vegetarian and all the Nazis were homosexuals", "Same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage", "The Ten Commandments are the basis for all American jurisprudence" and then for an encore you can tell us what happened to the conservative-forecasted plagues of "superpredator" youth criminals, crack babies and all the other dire ills that were to befall American society because of liberal ideas and policies. Though I admit watching you guys stampede from one imagined crisis to the next once they fail to materialize is very amusing, it would be a lot more amusing if you weren't allowing government to accrue more power and spend more of our money with each new panic. Oh wait, I forgot, that's only bad if it's something like climate change, it's perfectly okay if it's allowing government to be more intrusive and to build more prisons to stock with those who run afoul of its intrusiveness. Just don't take your guns, right? Too bad you've lost sight of what the Founders intended the Second Amendment for. Hint: it's not supposed to be a bribe the government uses to get you to overlook its abuses of its own people.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

lowing wrote:

what were you saying about made up crisis's and troubled youth?? Get over yourself already.


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a376806d70cec.htm

What an amazing argument of ultimate logic. Can't find anything to back up the shoddy thinking of the GOP, no problem! Just find some shoddy thinking from social conservative Democrats and try to get it to stick to liberals! Clue for ya, since I'm feeling generous and you seem to be running low on them: Gore wasn't exactly alone on the whole music censorship thing, there was (and still is) plenty of support for it from the other side of the aisle. Time/Warner records and "Cop Killer" ring any bells? You're missing something very important here sparky. I don't give a toss for politicians of either persuasion. They're all pretty much full of shit and will mainly do whatever benefits themselves and their contributors the most, not their voters. You are partly right though, the PMRC was a fantastic example of playing to unreasoned fear, just like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton in their stance on video games. Just don't think we're all stupid enough to believe these poser-progressives like Gore and Clinton are actual liberals. While their spineless ilk may have done a fantastic job in the past few years of allowing the Right to redefine the Left, they're just fakes, only talking up liberal and progressive ideals until they cease to benefit from it, ie. DADT and Hillary's ever-changing stance on the Iraq war. Maybe that's what you're worried about regarding the Fairness Doctrine: some actual liberal voices might slip through instead of these reliable paper targets you've grown so accustomed to dealing with.

Last edited by lowing (2007-07-09 05:29:21)