13rin
Member
+977|6888
So we all know that the Fearless leader world savior Obama is against the 'Fairness doctrine' -Right?  Wrong.

As usual its the typical say one thing and do the exact opposite, before the rest of the nation figures out what he's really up to.

http://www.jlaforums.com/link.php?url=h … Id%3D96797

Zahn wrote:

MEDIA MATTERS
31 horsemen of talk radio's apocalypse?
FCC anoints 'diversity' panel with 'Fairness Doctrine' mission
Posted: May 02, 2009
12:10 am Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Federal Communications Commission has announced the roster of a new advisory committee on "diversity" in communications, a move many critics have warned would mark the beginning of government regulation of talk radio and a reinstallation of the "Fairness Doctrine" by another name.

As WND reported, a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

Therefore, the report concluded, the best strategy for getting equal time for "progressives" on radio lies in mandating "diversity of ownership" without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the "Fairness Doctrine."

Sign the petition to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press!

Now, Michael J. Copps, acting chairman of the FCC has announced that the "Commission's Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age" will meet at the FCC headquarters on May 7 with a purpose closely paralleling step one of Podesta's plan for "balancing" talk radio.

The mission of the new diversity committee, according to the FCC website, is to "make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries."

Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, further commented on the lineup of 31 activists and media moguls chosen to form the committee.

"Not a single conservative organization is taking part in this commission," Motley writes. "More than a dozen leftist groups are. A little ironic for a 'diversity' panel, is it not?"
    

"The Obama administration confirmed the worst fears of talk radio by appointing Henry Rivera chairman," writes WND commentator Roger Hedgecock. "Rivera was the 1980s FCC commissioner who championed the 'Fairness Doctrine.' President Reagan replaced him on the FCC to get a majority to repeal the 'Fairness Doctrine' and usher in the talk radio era, which has given conservative Americans for the first time a media outlet with real clout."

The FCC abandoned the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, paving the way for talk radio to explode from fewer than 150 stations nationwide to more than 3,000. But many of those stations carry popular syndicated programming from politically conservative hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, prompting some politicians to seek more "balance" on the airwaves.

As WND has reported, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has joined up with other influential Democrats, including President Bill Clinton, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, in calling for a resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

It's time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech!

And President Obama, while he has eschewed support for the "Fairness Doctrine" by name, has made statements in speeches and on the White House website that read as through they were taken directly from Podesta's plan for using "diversity" to make radio more "fair."

WND reported video of an Obama speech before he was elected president in which the former Illinois legislator says, "I'm committed to having the FCC review what our current policies are in terms of media diversification. And part of what I want to do is to expand the diversity of voices in media, or have policies that encourage that."

In a statement regarding the new diversity committee, Acting FCC Chairman Copps expressed enthusiasm for fulfilling Obama's commitment.

"I am extremely pleased to announce the membership of this vital Advisory Committee," Copps stated, "which will provide an important and independent voice for strengthening our commitment to diversity. The sad truth is that the diversity of this great nation is not reflected in the ownership of its media and telecommunications facilities. The time has come to chart a new course, to roll up our sleeves and get to work to craft sustainable solutions."

The full membership of the committee is listed below:

    * Henry Rivera, Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media
    * Raul Alarcon, Jr., Spanish Broadcasting System
    * Jenny Alonzo, Mio.TV
    * James M. Assey, Jr., National Cable and Telecommunications Association
    * Geoffrey C. Blackwell, Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
    * Matthew Blank, Showtime Networks
    * Maria E. Brennan, American Women in Radio and Television
    * Kathy Brown, Verizon
    * Toni Cook Bush, Virgin Mobile
    * Alan B. Davidson, Google, Inc.
    * Ralph de la Vega, AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets
    * Steve Hillard, Council Tree Communications
    * David Honig, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
    * Rodney Hood, National Credit Union Administration
    * Ronald Johnson, Ronson Network Services
    * Debra Lee, BET Holdings, Inc.
    * Jane Mago, National Association of Broadcasters
    * Robert Mendez, ABC Television Network
    * Marc H. Morial, National Urban League
    * Karen K. Narasaki, Asian American Justice Center
    * Melissa Newman, Qwest
    * Jake Oliver, Afro-American Newspapers
    * Susan K. Patrick, Patrick Communications
    * Lisa Pickrum, The RLJ Companies
    * Rey Ramsey, One Economy Corporation
    * Michael V. Roberts, Roberts Broadcasting Companies LLC
    * Andrew Schwartzman, Media Access Project
    * Anita Stephens Graham, Opportunity Capital Partners
    * Diane Sutter, Shooting Star Broadcasting
    * Charles Warfield, Inner City Broadcasting
    * James Winston, National Association of Black Owned Broadcast
Opposition must be silenced at all costs.  Sieg Heil Obama!
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7058

Got a reputable source for that?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

Got a reputable source for that?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? … geId=90692

watch the video, unless of course you do not consider Obama a "reputable source", like me.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA
curiously silent from those that support the socialist and soon to be fascist Obama
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6592|Ireland
LOL, way to go two party system Sheeples!!!!!!

Democrates 50, Republicans 0
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6592|Ireland

lowing wrote:

curiously silent from those that support the socialist and soon to be fascist Obama
Yes We Can!
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7125
2010... and in the meantime... god help us all...
Love is the answer
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6814|North Carolina

Lotta_Drool wrote:

LOL, way to go two party system Sheeples!!!!!!

Democrates 50, Republicans 0
I didn't realize an Ancient Greek philosopher represented one of our parties.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6957|San Diego, CA, USA
It'll be passed...we have to deal with it 3-4 years before the Supreme court rules it unconstitutional, but enough time for Obama to get reelected.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6699|Éire
Yawn.

Fairness doctrine = bad
Patriot act = good
Questioning the war = unpatriotic
Advocating secession = patriotic
Bush = liberator
Obama = socialist (or according to lowing a fascist!)

...you guys just pick your side and stick blindly to it. Your airwaves will most likely be as equally full of shit with or without the fairness doctrine so what's the difference? Just wait 4-8 years and it'll be most likely done away with again anyway.

EDIT: ...or are all you dyed in the wool conservatives worried you might be converted by the "liberal-biased media" if you're exposed to too much of it?

Last edited by Braddock (2009-05-08 07:24:40)

Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6592|Ireland

Braddock wrote:

Yawn.

Fairness doctrine = bad
Patriot act = good
Questioning the war = unpatriotic
Advocating secession = patriotic
Bush = liberator
Obama = socialist (or according to lowing a fascist!)

...you guys just pick your side and stick blindly to it. Your airwaves will most likely be as equally full of shit with or without the fairness doctrine so what's the difference? Just wait 4-8 years and it'll be most likely done away with again anyway.

EDIT: ...or are all you dyed in the wool conservatives worried you might be converted by the "liberal-biased media" if you're exposed to too much of it?
Yawn.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6820|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

Yawn.

Fairness doctrine = bad
Patriot act = good
Questioning the war = unpatriotic
Advocating secession = patriotic
Bush = liberator
Obama = socialist (or according to lowing a fascist!)

...you guys just pick your side and stick blindly to it. Your airwaves will most likely be as equally full of shit with or without the fairness doctrine so what's the difference? Just wait 4-8 years and it'll be most likely done away with again anyway.

EDIT: ...or are all you dyed in the wool conservatives worried you might be converted by the "liberal-biased media" if you're exposed to too much of it?
Generalizing = good?

How would you feel if your government forced (not encouraged, forced) businesses that operate under the precept of free speech to broadcast/write something that doesn't suit their customer base?

Maybe you would agree with the government forcing newspapers and TV media to print/broadcast more conservative views?

You know...to be "fair".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6699|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Yawn.

Fairness doctrine = bad
Patriot act = good
Questioning the war = unpatriotic
Advocating secession = patriotic
Bush = liberator
Obama = socialist (or according to lowing a fascist!)

...you guys just pick your side and stick blindly to it. Your airwaves will most likely be as equally full of shit with or without the fairness doctrine so what's the difference? Just wait 4-8 years and it'll be most likely done away with again anyway.

EDIT: ...or are all you dyed in the wool conservatives worried you might be converted by the "liberal-biased media" if you're exposed to too much of it?
Generalizing = good?

How would you feel if your government forced (not encouraged, forced) businesses that operate under the precept of free speech to broadcast/write something that doesn't suit their customer base?

Maybe you would agree with the government forcing newspapers and TV media to print/broadcast more conservative views?

You know...to be "fair".
I don't agree with being forced to do anything... I would however entertain the idea of a standards watchdog for anyone that purports to be a news network so that reasonable ethics and standards are maintained in the presentation of news. Otherwise you just end up with propaganda networks.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5995

Don't like it but you have to give Obama credit for that one it's pretty clever.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7125
so you would be happy Braddock with one radio station that tells you what you need to know?
i'm thinking as versed as you are with politics... you might like the balance of a dissenting opinion...?

and in the US... liberal talk shows can't get anyone to listen... shocker... air america is a joke...
Love is the answer
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6820|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

[I don't agree with being forced to do anything... I would however entertain the idea of a standards watchdog for anyone that purports to be a news network so that reasonable ethics and standards are maintained in the presentation of news. Otherwise you just end up with propaganda networks.
If those stations were only broadcasting the "government line", then you would be correct. However, since that is not the case in this discussion--and would most certainly NOT be if no "fairness doctrine" were imposed--that argument doesn't really wash here.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6699|Éire

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

so you would be happy Braddock with one radio station that tells you what you need to know?
i'm thinking as versed as you are with politics... you might like the balance of a dissenting opinion...?

and in the US... liberal talk shows can't get anyone to listen... shocker... air america is a joke...
Where did I say that?

The UK has a standards watchdog and regulator (Ofcom) and they don't have only one radio station. You sound like a right-wing tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist extrapolating things to ridiculous, unrealistic extremes. Anything that passes itself off as news should be made to follow a code of ethics and standards in the interest of good journalism and transparency... if you want to have a two-bit, hack opinion show where only one side gets heard then go ahead, just don't continually flash a news logo in the corner of the screen while you're doing it.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6820|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

so you would be happy Braddock with one radio station that tells you what you need to know?
i'm thinking as versed as you are with politics... you might like the balance of a dissenting opinion...?

and in the US... liberal talk shows can't get anyone to listen... shocker... air america is a joke...
Where did I say that?

The UK has a standards watchdog and regulator (Ofcom) and they don't have only one radio station. You sound like a right-wing tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist extrapolating things to ridiculous, unrealistic extremes. Anything that passes itself off as news should be made to follow a code of ethics and standards in the interest of good journalism and transparency... if you want to have a two-bit, hack opinion show where only one side gets heard then go ahead, just don't continually flash a news logo in the corner of the screen while you're doing it.
Like this?
https://waxingpoetically.today.com/files/2008/05/keith_olbermann_101.jpg
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6699|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[I don't agree with being forced to do anything... I would however entertain the idea of a standards watchdog for anyone that purports to be a news network so that reasonable ethics and standards are maintained in the presentation of news. Otherwise you just end up with propaganda networks.
If those stations were only broadcasting the "government line", then you would be correct. However, since that is not the case in this discussion--and would most certainly NOT be if no "fairness doctrine" were imposed--that argument doesn't really wash here.
I don't really understand the point you are making here... my idea for a watchdog commission would be to scrutinize news stories for truthfulness and objectivity regardless of political leaning.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6699|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

so you would be happy Braddock with one radio station that tells you what you need to know?
i'm thinking as versed as you are with politics... you might like the balance of a dissenting opinion...?

and in the US... liberal talk shows can't get anyone to listen... shocker... air america is a joke...
Where did I say that?

The UK has a standards watchdog and regulator (Ofcom) and they don't have only one radio station. You sound like a right-wing tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist extrapolating things to ridiculous, unrealistic extremes. Anything that passes itself off as news should be made to follow a code of ethics and standards in the interest of good journalism and transparency... if you want to have a two-bit, hack opinion show where only one side gets heard then go ahead, just don't continually flash a news logo in the corner of the screen while you're doing it.
Like this?
http://waxingpoetically.today.com/files … nn_101.jpg
Exactly like that.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6820|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[I don't agree with being forced to do anything... I would however entertain the idea of a standards watchdog for anyone that purports to be a news network so that reasonable ethics and standards are maintained in the presentation of news. Otherwise you just end up with propaganda networks.
If those stations were only broadcasting the "government line", then you would be correct. However, since that is not the case in this discussion--and would most certainly NOT be if no "fairness doctrine" were imposed--that argument doesn't really wash here.
I don't really understand the point you are making here... my idea for a watchdog commission would be to scrutinize news stories for truthfulness and objectivity regardless of political leaning.
You clearly don't grasp the background of the discussion here in the US. The argument from the left isn't about broadcast news...it is about talk radio which is not in any way portrayed as "news". It is purely opinion and very clearly so. The left want "balance" because the talk-radio market is dominated by right-oriented hosts...the left wants more left-oriented shows.

Only they tried that and it failed miserably because there was no market for that in the talk-radio audience.

So...the point I was making was that your "propaganda" comment would be applicable if the broadcast channels (TV, radio, internet) were only broadcasting the government-approved position/content. If the government isn't involved, it can't be propaganda.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6699|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:


If those stations were only broadcasting the "government line", then you would be correct. However, since that is not the case in this discussion--and would most certainly NOT be if no "fairness doctrine" were imposed--that argument doesn't really wash here.
I don't really understand the point you are making here... my idea for a watchdog commission would be to scrutinize news stories for truthfulness and objectivity regardless of political leaning.
You clearly don't grasp the background of the discussion here in the US. The argument from the left isn't about broadcast news...it is about talk radio which is not in any way portrayed as "news". It is purely opinion and very clearly so. The left want "balance" because the talk-radio market is dominated by right-oriented hosts...the left wants more left-oriented shows.

Only they tried that and it failed miserably because there was no market for that in the talk-radio audience.

So...the point I was making was that your "propaganda" comment would be applicable if the broadcast channels (TV, radio, internet) were only broadcasting the government-approved position/content. If the government isn't involved, it can't be propaganda.
Well no it can be propaganda, propaganda isn't defined by any kind of state involvement.

But back to your main point, it sounds to me like the Democrat party would be better advised to back the establishment of more liberal talk radio shows rather than pushing a doctrine if that's their true concern. But seriously though, radio? Who listens to radio nowadays? ...oh I forgot, hick Republicans do!

The whole thing sounds like wank's and gee's to me, I should have added this to my original post:

mountain = molehill
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7010|132 and Bush

Pissed of libs listen too. Tis the only way to get the kind of ratings they do. Love/hate.


I have a commute. Music isn't always what I want to hear. I guess that makes me a hick..lol

Spoiler (highlight to read):
audiobooks and podcast tbh
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6699|Éire

Kmarion wrote:

Pissed of libs listen too. Tis the only way to get the kind of ratings they do. Love/hate.


I have a commute. Music isn't always what I want to hear. I guess that makes me a hick..lol

Spoiler (highlight to read):
audiobooks and podcast tbh
I was only joking but it is an interesting sign of difference between the left and the right. While the left are on Twitter and blogging away in cyberspace the right are tuning in their FM radios trying to pick up some God-loving Republican complaining about immigrants!

It's just an exaggerated caricature I know but possibly with a grain truth!?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7010|132 and Bush

Remember this? http://presidentialwatch08.com/index.php/map/

But I agree the left is very prominent online.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard