PDA

View Full Version : Poop Schumer revives Fairness Doctrine discussion


triple
11-04-2008, 11:24 AM
Schumer on Fox: Fairness Doctrine ‘fair and balanced’
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 11/04/08 11:30 AM [ET]

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

In his Fox interview, Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also weighed in on the election, predicting that Democrats will end up with between 56 and 58 seats in the Senate.

He also defended “card check” legislation, claiming there is a strong need to allow workers a private ballot to register their votes on whether to organize a union.
Schumer said “there has to be some counter” to the leverage businesses have, claiming “employers have every leg up on people who want to organize and that’s why union workers have gone down from about 25 percent to 6 percent [in the private sector].”

Business groups adamantly oppose the card check bill, which passed the House and fell short of the necessary votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-defends-fairness-doctrine-as-fair-and-balanced-2008-11-04.html

triple
11-04-2008, 11:27 AM
My guess is that shutting up talk radio will be one of their first moves, to clear the way for the rest.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 11:29 AM
I heard two dems last week started probing about shutting up the military from giving press brieifings during combat.

Sounds like someone is really wanting to control what we hear and who we hear it from.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 11:30 AM
How come no liberal talk shows can make it on their own? I never heard of a radio station turning down a profitable program regardless of politics.

dirk digler
11-04-2008, 11:32 AM
I personally think this is just all talk. I don't think Obama would go for this if he becomes the POTUS

triple
11-04-2008, 11:36 AM
I personally think this is just all talk. I don't think Obama would go for this if he becomes the POTUS

what evidence is there to believe he would stand up to party leadership?

Sully
11-04-2008, 11:39 AM
I can't see this being seriousl pushed.
If it is, I'll be right alongside you guys with torches and pitchforks decrying it.

Friendo
11-04-2008, 11:52 AM
I can't see this being seriousl pushed.
If it is, I'll be right alongside you guys with torches and pitchforks decrying it.

agreed--ain't gonna happen...just a :Poke:

triple
11-04-2008, 12:04 PM
agreed--ain't gonna happen...just a :Poke:

Who's going to stop them?

RJ
11-04-2008, 12:05 PM
I can't see this being seriousl pushed.
If it is, I'll be right alongside you guys with torches and pitchforks decrying it.


Same here.

We have a lefty station on the right side of the AM dial and a righty station on the AM dial and I listen to them both - though lately the righty station has been a bit highly charged.

One of the senators pushing this, Jeff Bingaman, is from here. I intend to send him an email on the subject after the elections. I'm against government telling a radio station what views they have to broadcast. I can change the station on my own and there are plenty of progressive shows available if that's my preference.

donkhater
11-04-2008, 12:06 PM
I personally think this is just all talk. I don't think Obama would go for this if he becomes the POTUS

Then you haven't been paying attention. His campaign was constantly threatening to supress radio stations that aired news stories that were critical of him.

I honestly think this will be job 1 for Barry and the Dems. Can't quite see the constitutionality of it, but after he puts a couple 'compassionate' justices on the bench, that won't really matter, will it?

Sully
11-04-2008, 12:08 PM
[QUOTE=dirk digler;5186061]I personally think this is just all talk. I don't think Obama would go for this if he becomes the POTUS[/QUOTE

Then you haven't been paying attention. His campaign was constantly threatening to supress radio stations that aired news stories that were critical of him.

I honestly think this will be job 1 for Barry and the Dems. Can't quite see the constitutionality of it, but after he puts a couple 'compassionate' justices on the bench, that won't really matter, will it?

I paid pretty close attntion, but that must've slipped past my radar. Can you help me out with some links?

Also...do you know which justices will be replaced, if any, and the Supreme COurt?

Iowanian
11-04-2008, 12:08 PM
So much for free speech and capitolism.


Dear Leader will want equal time for air time worship of him.

triple
11-04-2008, 12:09 PM
Then you haven't been paying attention. His campaign was constantly threatening to supress radio stations that aired news stories that were critical of him.

I honestly think this will be job 1 for Barry and the Dems. Can't quite see the constitutionality of it, but after he puts a couple 'compassionate' justices on the bench, that won't really matter, will it?

Congress would love nothing more than to give the old media their monopoly on the airwaves back.

Does Obama want it? I think he probably does, but even if he doesn't, he's not going to stand up to the party to stop it.

donkhater
11-04-2008, 12:20 PM
[QUOTE=donkhater;5186261]

I paid pretty close attntion, but that must've slipped past my radar. Can you help me out with some links?

Also...do you know which justices will be replaced, if any, and the Supreme COurt?

Here ya go. There are links within the article as well.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/29/the_dictator_label/

I would think that Scalia (age 72)would be close to stepping down as any conservative justice. Obviously replacing Ginsberg (75) or Stevens (88) wouldn't change the look of the court much. Kennedy (72) leaving might matter since he can be somewhat of a swing vote. Alito, Roberts and Thomas are actually the youngest.

alanm
11-04-2008, 12:24 PM
You knew this was coming. They can't wait to get past election day. :spock:

Donger
11-04-2008, 12:29 PM
“Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” said Ortiz.

“[T]hat is why Senator Obama supports media ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

BucEyedPea
11-04-2008, 12:31 PM
This came under attack in the courts in the late 80s when it was done away with. When it was first past there wasn't much media available. Now due to expanding technology we have information overload. Let Schumer play thought police...let the minorty Rs get it challenged in SC with new evidence and new technology.

And I wonder if Franken will like having Limbaugh on his show. ROFL

RJ
11-04-2008, 12:53 PM
On a similar subject - how great would an Obama presidency be for Rush and Hannity's ratings?

mlyonsd
11-04-2008, 01:22 PM
“Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” said Ortiz.

“[T]hat is why Senator Obama supports media ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Affirmative action in every aspect of life. Brilliant.

memyselfI
11-04-2008, 01:32 PM
I fully expect this will happen. The nutjobs on KOS and DU will ensure it happens in some form. They fully understand the power talk radio has had in the political landscape over the years. They now have the power and the votes to change this.

Cannibal
11-04-2008, 01:35 PM
Do not forget that we already had the Fairness Doctrine from 1947 to 1987. It was abolished under the Reagan adminstration (right around the time conservative radio propaganda took off... whoda thunk it?)

I am not necessarily for forcing radio personalities to have another person sitting right next to them (ala Hannity and Colmes) to air both viewpoints, but I am for ensuring that people are not using public airwaves to outright lie, decieve and spread propaganda on a daily basis. If you can come up with a way to ensure people are not lying intentionally without the need of the Fairness Doctrine, then I'm all for it.

***SPRAYER
11-04-2008, 01:35 PM
I can't see this being seriousl pushed.
If it is, I'll be right alongside you guys with torches and pitchforks decrying it.

Gee thanks.

:rolleyes:

donkhater
11-04-2008, 02:17 PM
I was just wondering. Wouldn't this force major newspapers into hiring conservative columnists and reporters?

Calcountry
11-04-2008, 02:37 PM
I can't see this being seriousl pushed.
If it is, I'll be right alongside you guys with torches and pitchforks decrying it.A lot of good it will do then.

triple
11-04-2008, 03:09 PM
I was just wondering. Wouldn't this force major newspapers into hiring conservative columnists and reporters?

it only affected those with broadcasting licenses.

conveniently, no one ever saw a need to impose fairness on TV or print media.

i do see them salivating at the thought of radio returning to golden oldies and the days when there was no political talk on the radio.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-04-2008, 04:45 PM
I am not necessarily for forcing radio personalities to have another person sitting right next to them (ala Hannity and Colmes) to air both viewpoints, but I am for ensuring that people are not using public airwaves to outright lie, decieve and spread propaganda on a daily basis. If you can come up with a way to ensure people are not lying intentionally without the need of the Fairness Doctrine, then I'm all for it.

Who determines what constitutes lies and propaganda? Is there a special committee? Perhaps we can start another useless alphabet agency to handle such issues.

BucEyedPea
11-04-2008, 04:48 PM
Do not forget that we already had the Fairness Doctrine from 1947 to 1987. It was abolished under the Reagan adminstration (right around the time conservative radio propaganda took off... whoda thunk it?)

I am not necessarily for forcing radio personalities to have another person sitting right next to them (ala Hannity and Colmes) to air both viewpoints, but I am for ensuring that people are not using public airwaves to outright lie, decieve and spread propaganda on a daily basis. If you can come up with a way to ensure people are not lying intentionally without the need of the Fairness Doctrine, then I'm all for it.

How 'bout a Ministry of Truth?

banyon
11-04-2008, 05:04 PM
Here ya go. There are links within the article as well.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/29/the_dictator_label/

That article didn't say what you claim it does.

I would think that Scalia (age 72)would be close to stepping down as any conservative justice. Obviously replacing Ginsberg (75) or Stevens (88) wouldn't change the look of the court much. Kennedy (72) leaving might matter since he can be somewhat of a swing vote. Alito, Roberts and Thomas are actually the youngest.

Scalia is still very vibrant and healthy. I've seen him twice in the last few years.

Ginsburg is hanging on for dear life, she is in terrible shape, she'll be the first to go, if Stevens doesn't beat her out the door.

Souter supposedly "hates Washington" and wants to retire, so he might go too. I haven't heard that anyone else is close.

banyon
11-04-2008, 05:04 PM
How 'bout a Ministry of Truth?

Yeah, defamation laws = Totalitarianism111!!11

jjjayb
11-04-2008, 05:11 PM
I can't see this being seriousl pushed.
If it is, I'll be right alongside you guys with torches and pitchforks decrying it.

Unfortunately, by then it will have been too late. :shake:

jjjayb
11-04-2008, 05:14 PM
I am not necessarily for forcing radio personalities to have another person sitting right next to them (ala Hannity and Colmes) to air both viewpoints, but I am for ensuring that people are not using public airwaves to outright lie, decieve and spread propaganda on a daily basis.

Great, so you will police the TV media then?

Sully
11-04-2008, 06:58 PM
Do not forget that we already had the Fairness Doctrine from 1947 to 1987. It was abolished under the Reagan adminstration (right around the time conservative radio propaganda took off... whoda thunk it?)

I am not necessarily for forcing radio personalities to have another person sitting right next to them (ala Hannity and Colmes) to air both viewpoints, but I am for ensuring that people are not using public airwaves to outright lie, decieve and spread propaganda on a daily basis. If you can come up with a way to ensure people are not lying intentionally without the need of the Fairness Doctrine, then I'm all for it.

If they consistently lie, they will get clowned...see Franken vs Limbaugh or Franken vs Oreilly.