E-Mail 'First, it was "Path to 9/11", now it's the Fairness Doctrine' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'First, it was "Path to 9/11", now it's the Fairness Doctrine' to a friend

Loading ...

8 Responses to "First, it was “Path to 9/11”, now it’s the Fairness Doctrine"

JammieWearingFool says:

March 20, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Considering every Sunday show is hosted by a Democrat, I’m not clear on what Hinchey’s beef is. Then again, this nut thought Karl Rove was behind Memogate, so anything is possible in his feverish mind.
Lorica says:

March 20, 2007 at 1:07 pm

And who is going to pay for this?? Liberal talk radio is the world’s largest sink hole, and this moron wants to mandate it. So as the 20 million people who listen to Rush turn off their radio because we don’t want to listen to the hate Bush diatribe, the Government is going to flood this with cash so it can mantain the mandates of this law. That will then make these individuals Government employees, and the Hatch Act will kick in and they can no longer be partisan. LOL :o) Bozos one and all. – Lorica
G-Monster says:

March 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm

If we are going to be fair, ABC, NBC, and CBS should hire one conservative news anchor, spokesman, reporter, writer, editor and cameraman, for every liberal they employ in the same position.

Same with the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. The conservatives should be given equal time on the air, and equal space in the papers.

And why stop there. Maybe we should let conservatives into our universities and highschools.
G-Monster says:

March 20, 2007 at 1:38 pm

On second thought, let the free market decide who gets watched. There’s a reason Fox News is the #1 rated cable news channel. They don’t have any competition.
Chris says:

March 20, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Yes indeed, “fairness doctrine” is quite a misnomer. The fairness doctrine wasn’t fair at all as it only applied to broadcasters and it actually discouraged open debate and limited speech. Broadcasters avoided covering controversial topics rather than run the risk of complaints that they hadn’t covered all sides of an issue.

I do a bit of consulting with the NAB on this and the media ownership issue. Regarding both issues, critics fail to recognize the amazing changes in the media marketplace that have occurred since 2003 when the ownership rules were last reviewed and since 1987 when the fairness doctrine was put out to pasture. We don’t just have three TV stations to choose from, but broadcasters, cable, satellite and online media. The FCC needs to update the ownership rules to reflect these changes and ensure that our local broadcasters can compete and continue providing free programming. Thanks.
Baklava says:

March 20, 2007 at 3:50 pm

We need to rename the “fairness doctrine” to the “anti-first ammendment doctrine” or A-FAD.

BTW, I want equal time on the Communist News Network, the New York Slime, the Atlanta Journal, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle and CBS, NBC, ABC.

Where do I apply? I would show the alternate non-defeatist viewpoint of successes in Iraq, coming straight from the soldiers making videos and posting them on that youtube channel for starters.

That would go a long way towards changing the cut and runners attitudes (the me generation) who want everything as fast as they can scroll through their artists on thier iPod with no perspective.

I’m rambling but this A-FAD thing really miffs me.
NC Cop says:

March 20, 2007 at 7:46 pm

What a joke! Are these the same democrats who dropped out of a debate because it was co-hosted by Fox News?!?! Give me a break!
forest hunter says:

March 20, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Until the federally funded CampPuss’s NATIONWIDE can adopt a stance that is genuinely reflective of anything resembling fair, these idiots can go spawn in some nuclear waste – code for the dhimmi’s houses of ill reputations.

Comments are closed.