Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
America has been bought and sold.
More at http://www.BrasscheckTV.com
More at http://www.BrasscheckTV.com
Dec 3, 2008 11:17 AM
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctorine & The Media
Really, really, fucking awesome. There ARE still some sane people left. That's a nice consolation. If only it mattered at all in the grand scheme.
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Another winner WW.
More people need exposure to the concept of a more ideal media. It is rare that i meet someone who knows what the fairness doctrine was and the importance of its repeal.
More people need exposure to the concept of a more ideal media. It is rare that i meet someone who knows what the fairness doctrine was and the importance of its repeal.
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
And a thank you for that Greg Palast talk you submitted not long ago.
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
The planets were all in line and a full moon must have been in the sky during this speech. Whatever happen to if you do not want to listen or watch, turn the station? What is "fair" about telling me what I have to listen too?
By: jon99doe
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
There is a right wing media. And there is a strong liberal media as well. Neither is doing it's job as true, unbias new outlets.
By: ejayerik
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Excellent. But a bit myopic when Kennedy states that there is no left wing equivalent to Rush Limbaugh. There are plenty, including Olbermann, Green, vanden Heuvel, Maddow, etc.
Different masters but the same game, which really needs to be called to an end.
Different masters but the same game, which really needs to be called to an end.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Olbermann is the only one even close, and he's way behind Rush in the size of this following. Also, while he may be as transparently biased as Rush, he does have a much better rapport with Sanity and his buddy Truth. Take Rush, limit his discourse to *verifiable facts*, graft on at least a modicum of decency, and cut his audience by three quarters and you have a guy you might reasonably compare to Keith. I'm not saying I want Olbermann to run president, but do some cursory research on Rupert Murdoch and tell me there isn't a strong conservative bias.
McCain/Palin '84
McCain/Palin '84
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
There is too much anti-rupublican, anti-conservative speech on this website. We need the government to force the webmasters under threat of imprisonment to disseminate more pro-republican, pro-conservative opinion on this website.
By: poonhound
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
ADDENDUM:
No one should be allowed to express his or her opinion on any subject on any medium unless it is approved first by the new "Ministry of Thought" which could be run by Mr. Kennedy.
We need a soothsayer, a miracle worker who walks on water to tell us what objective truth actually is, therefore he could monitor our expression and make sure it does not tip the scale of bias, else they be forced by threat of incarceration to add the opposing voice, again approved by the honorable Mr. Kennedy.
No one should be allowed to express his or her opinion on any subject on any medium unless it is approved first by the new "Ministry of Thought" which could be run by Mr. Kennedy.
We need a soothsayer, a miracle worker who walks on water to tell us what objective truth actually is, therefore he could monitor our expression and make sure it does not tip the scale of bias, else they be forced by threat of incarceration to add the opposing voice, again approved by the honorable Mr. Kennedy.
By: poonhound
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
So why do you keep coming back here? Is self-flagellation a trait that your family is predisposed to?
Go visit Rush Limbaugh's site or Michelle Malkin's blog and wallow in the slop that you so desire. Stop doing us any favors by displaying your ignorance here.
Go visit Rush Limbaugh's site or Michelle Malkin's blog and wallow in the slop that you so desire. Stop doing us any favors by displaying your ignorance here.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
It sounds as if you are an ardent opponent of the Fairness Doctrine, just like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are.
You mean to tell me, if I don't like the speech I am hearing, I can just turn off the radio, or change the channel, or go to a different website? What are you, some kind of Neo-con?
Didn't you hear what Robert Kennedy Jr. just said? Don't you realize we need the government to ensure "fairness" by monitoring and regulating what we are allowed to say with legislation like the fairness doctrine?
You mean to tell me, if I don't like the speech I am hearing, I can just turn off the radio, or change the channel, or go to a different website? What are you, some kind of Neo-con?
Didn't you hear what Robert Kennedy Jr. just said? Don't you realize we need the government to ensure "fairness" by monitoring and regulating what we are allowed to say with legislation like the fairness doctrine?
By: poonhound
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
You got it, poonhound! I despise Limbaugh & Co., but they have every right to be heard. Clearly, this site should be compelled to have a certain percentage of it's content dedicated to a conservative point of view.
The same would apply to sites like moveon.org, crooksandliars.com and the huffingtonpost.com.
Let Fairness reign!
The same would apply to sites like moveon.org, crooksandliars.com and the huffingtonpost.com.
Let Fairness reign!
By: shitba
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Obviously, I'm joking. That would be terrible! But the new Fairness Doctrine will EXTEND TO THE INTERNET, TOO! Stay on guard, people! I know your guy is in, and you think that candy and ice cream are coming your way, but he's just another tyrant.
By: shitba
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Yeah, that's it. Most folks come to the same conculusion as you. They all think I am a neo-con.
Actually, I'm rather surprised you bother to show back up here after your past erroneous and hostile comments about gay lovers in California. Just my supposition, but if I were in your Doc Martens I'd likely be too embarrassed.
Actually, I'm rather surprised you bother to show back up here after your past erroneous and hostile comments about gay lovers in California. Just my supposition, but if I were in your Doc Martens I'd likely be too embarrassed.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
You may be the first Fairness Doctrine-hating, political correctness fetishist that I have heard of.
You can't take a politically incorrect joke about being gay (hardly hostile, if you ask me), you have no problem morally equating the non-recognition of gay marriage to torturing and hanging homosexuals in Iran, yet you seem to despise the Fairness doctrine.
That is odd. Most PC, easily offended folks like you are big proponents of the fairness doctrine.
You can't take a politically incorrect joke about being gay (hardly hostile, if you ask me), you have no problem morally equating the non-recognition of gay marriage to torturing and hanging homosexuals in Iran, yet you seem to despise the Fairness doctrine.
That is odd. Most PC, easily offended folks like you are big proponents of the fairness doctrine.
By: poonhound
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Right. It was a joke. As lame an excuse as the dog eating your homework.
Begone troll. I have no use for you.
Begone troll. I have no use for you.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
You know, not everything that comes out of Limbaugh's and Malkin's mouths is wrong. Just most of it.
Ideally speaking, the Fairness Doctrine is a load of crap. The press should be free to report whatever it wants to. Sources of media that propagate false information or are too biased should be shunned by the people and go under. Realistically speaking, the majority of Americans are too lazy to critically assess the information they receive from popular news sources. They need both sides of an issue force-fed to them.
Also, if I'm reading this properly, the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't prevent the media from reporting controversial stories, it would just require them to report both sides of it. It's not really limiting the freedom of the press, per se, but it demands that the press do more.
If the people demanded honest media, they'd get it. There wouldn't need to be a Fairness Doctrine.
Ideally speaking, the Fairness Doctrine is a load of crap. The press should be free to report whatever it wants to. Sources of media that propagate false information or are too biased should be shunned by the people and go under. Realistically speaking, the majority of Americans are too lazy to critically assess the information they receive from popular news sources. They need both sides of an issue force-fed to them.
Also, if I'm reading this properly, the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't prevent the media from reporting controversial stories, it would just require them to report both sides of it. It's not really limiting the freedom of the press, per se, but it demands that the press do more.
If the people demanded honest media, they'd get it. There wouldn't need to be a Fairness Doctrine.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
I agree.
As with a lot of things, the Fairness Doctrine could do a lot of damage if it ends up in the wrong hands. I don't think it was designed with that purpose in mind (quite the contrary), but it can be abused. Who, in fact, decides what the opposing view of something is? If I were running a radio station, I wouldn't like someone from the government telling me what is black and what is white; I can decide for myself. I don't like being told what to say. What counts are facts - and telling the whole truth, or at least finding out what the whole truth is and presenting it like that for all to see.
As you say, in an ideal world there wouldn't be any need for a Fairness Doctrine. It sounds rather creepy, too. Maybe it'll be followed by the Patriot Doctrine. I foresee a future in which certain people enjoy a far higher status in society than others do, legally speaking. This is actually well-established right now, but sort of veiled. I think there's going to be "public" zones that only certain people can enter or leave.
I seem to be digressing.
Again, in the right hands, most or perhaps all of the Fairness Doctrine is a force for good. Wielded by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, it will be a many-tentacled thing infiltrating more areas of public life and choking the life out of it. It will mean bigger government, i.e. more control, something that always backfires in the end. Meanwhile, the road lies open for a dictatorship, but for now America still likes to pretend all is well with democracy.
As with a lot of things, the Fairness Doctrine could do a lot of damage if it ends up in the wrong hands. I don't think it was designed with that purpose in mind (quite the contrary), but it can be abused. Who, in fact, decides what the opposing view of something is? If I were running a radio station, I wouldn't like someone from the government telling me what is black and what is white; I can decide for myself. I don't like being told what to say. What counts are facts - and telling the whole truth, or at least finding out what the whole truth is and presenting it like that for all to see.
As you say, in an ideal world there wouldn't be any need for a Fairness Doctrine. It sounds rather creepy, too. Maybe it'll be followed by the Patriot Doctrine. I foresee a future in which certain people enjoy a far higher status in society than others do, legally speaking. This is actually well-established right now, but sort of veiled. I think there's going to be "public" zones that only certain people can enter or leave.
I seem to be digressing.
Again, in the right hands, most or perhaps all of the Fairness Doctrine is a force for good. Wielded by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, it will be a many-tentacled thing infiltrating more areas of public life and choking the life out of it. It will mean bigger government, i.e. more control, something that always backfires in the end. Meanwhile, the road lies open for a dictatorship, but for now America still likes to pretend all is well with democracy.
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Liberals don't visit this site because they are liberals. People who come here just happen to be liberal. Why? Because libs have a better sense of humor. With the exception of Ron White, redneck humor is painfully unfunny (though the same can be said of typical black humor outside of Chris Rock and Chappelle).
By: Fonz
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
There are only two teams. Your team thinks, laughs, eats, and sleeps like that, and my team thinks, laughs, eats, and sleeps like this.
Read up on the Hegelian Dialectic.
Read up on the Hegelian Dialectic.
By: shitba
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
A doctrine dictating that stations must have 2 preachers for 2 choirs alternating on the same station is unnecessary.
What really needs to happen is to extricate the dollar from the media. Money has no place in journalism, None.
Of course it is not rational to assume that these things can function without money, real journalism is actually quite expensive. But the money must no longer come from advertising or things that pay based on viewer numbers or ratings, this leads to sensationalism and as a result a reduction in reporting quality. What we need are news organizations that are funded by concerned citizens (I.E. Real News, NPR and the like).
The fairness doctrine had good intentions but the result was just more of a teeter-totter of right-left-right- left as opposed to a perfectly balanced see-saw. As Wolf pointed out somewhere up there in the comments, this was a good idea and still can be but its all about the execution and who is wielding the power to decide. At this point its hard to say who should get the reins. The FCC? Hell no. Big business? even worse. If power here was administered by a group of ex-journalists (the real ones) and professors of law, linguistics (Noam maybe), sociology, and anthropology it just might work. But I might as well wish for a threesome with Claudia Shiffer and Natalie Portman while i'm dreaming of things that wont happen.
My point: as long as we keep talking about it in daily life and maybe funding these little guy news groups, maybe, just maybe, more people will give a fucking shit about the things we are told and jump on the glorious bandwagon of true patriotism and desire for a better life for all. Hopefully it won't be too late by then.
What really needs to happen is to extricate the dollar from the media. Money has no place in journalism, None.
Of course it is not rational to assume that these things can function without money, real journalism is actually quite expensive. But the money must no longer come from advertising or things that pay based on viewer numbers or ratings, this leads to sensationalism and as a result a reduction in reporting quality. What we need are news organizations that are funded by concerned citizens (I.E. Real News, NPR and the like).
The fairness doctrine had good intentions but the result was just more of a teeter-totter of right-left-right- left as opposed to a perfectly balanced see-saw. As Wolf pointed out somewhere up there in the comments, this was a good idea and still can be but its all about the execution and who is wielding the power to decide. At this point its hard to say who should get the reins. The FCC? Hell no. Big business? even worse. If power here was administered by a group of ex-journalists (the real ones) and professors of law, linguistics (Noam maybe), sociology, and anthropology it just might work. But I might as well wish for a threesome with Claudia Shiffer and Natalie Portman while i'm dreaming of things that wont happen.
My point: as long as we keep talking about it in daily life and maybe funding these little guy news groups, maybe, just maybe, more people will give a fucking shit about the things we are told and jump on the glorious bandwagon of true patriotism and desire for a better life for all. Hopefully it won't be too late by then.
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
Hear, hear. Stop supporting the corporate mainstream media like Fox, MSNBC, et al. Starve them out.
And support your favorite non-corporate, reality-based news that's still willing to engage in true investigative journalism.
And support your favorite non-corporate, reality-based news that's still willing to engage in true investigative journalism.
Re: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The Fairness Doctrine & The Media
The main point of the Fairness Doctrine is that broadcast licenses are granted for monopoly use of a resource that's owned by the public. There are only a few radio and television licenses possible in any geographic area. If I want to run a website, or print a newspaper, I'm not cutting into your ability to do the same. But by operating a radio station, I'm preventing someone else form using that piece of spectrum.
The Fairness Doctrine is a crude patch to the fundamental structural problem of private control of a limited resource, but we're worse off without it.
The Fairness Doctrine is a crude patch to the fundamental structural problem of private control of a limited resource, but we're worse off without it.
