Chuck Shumer really really wants Fairness Doctrine (ie to restrict speech) - Page 3

JetsFan2012 · 11-05-2008, 02:29 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2843834]I frankly don't care about this issue much -- radio is a wasteland since consolidation and everybody knows it. Listeners vanishing every year. Why bother with fairness doctrine? Schumer, Emanuel & Obama just proved yesterday how weak and ineffectual the talk radio crowd really is.[/QUOTE]

It beings already. Liberals don't care about the constitution!

I'm off to the gun store. I have to load up before January.

fukushimajin · 11-05-2008, 03:22 PM

[QUOTE=pauliec;2844039]It beings already. Liberals don't care about the constitution!

I'm off to the gun store. I have to load up before January.[/QUOTE]

I've already got mine. First, freedom of speech and use of a licensed public airway are two different things. Second, I said "why bother with the fairness doctrine?" Third, In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld[B] (by a vote of 8-0)[/B] the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically,now it is up to the discretion of the FCC.
Evidence once again that Conservatives just say stuff --without any basis in fact or reality. Also, where were all you brave Constitutional Warriors when GW Dummy was wiretapping whoever based on his "inherent authority"? Oh that's right you were listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly tell you all day that it was just fine.

You know, thanks to this dumb thread -- I read the case & related history and now am fully in support of the fairness doctrine and will call Chuck S. to say: go for it.

Warfish · 11-05-2008, 03:26 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844130]I've already got mine. First, freedom of speech and use of a licensed public airway are two different things. Second, I said "why bother with the fairness doctrine?" Third, In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld[B] (by a vote of 8-0)[/B] the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically,now it is up to the discretion of the FCC.
Evidence once again that Conservatives just say stuff --without any basis in fact or reality. Also, where were all you brave Constitutional Warriors when GW Dummy was wiretapping whoever based on his "inherent authority"? Oh that's right you were listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly tell you all day that it was just fine.

You know, thanks to this dumb thread -- I read the case & related history and now am fully in support of the fairness doctrine and will call Chuck S. to say: go for it.[/QUOTE]

So I assume you support it for TV and Satelite as well too, right? As Both must travel through the "publicly owned airwaves" to reach their respective recipients.

And you support a 50/50 Right/Left Panel to do the Review, in the interest of fairness, right?

doggin94it · 11-05-2008, 03:30 PM

[quote=fukushimajin;2844130]I've already got mine. First, freedom of speech and use of a licensed public airway are two different things. Second, I said "why bother with the fairness doctrine?" Third, In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld[B] (by a vote of 8-0)[/B] the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically,now it is up to the discretion of the FCC.
Evidence once again that Conservatives just say stuff --without any basis in fact or reality. Also, where were all you brave Constitutional Warriors when GW Dummy was wiretapping whoever based on his "inherent authority"? Oh that's right you were listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly tell you all day that it was just fine.

You know, thanks to this dumb thread -- I read the case & related history and now am fully in support of the fairness doctrine and will call Chuck S. to say: go for it.[/quote]

Fuku, Red Lion was decided in a distinctly different broadcasting environment, with limited station frequencies available to listeners doled out by an FCC charged with protecting the public interest, and that was the rationale underlying the decision. That landscape no longer exists, and Red Lion's holding is (or should be) dead letter

fukushimajin · 11-05-2008, 03:37 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2844143]So I assume you support it for TV and Satelite as well too, right? As Both must travel through the "publicly owned airwaves" to reach their respective recipients.

And you support a 50/50 Right/Left Panel to do the Review, in the interest of fairness, right?[/QUOTE]

Sure, sounds good.

Warfish · 11-05-2008, 03:38 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844160]Sure, sounds good.[/QUOTE]

Great! I assume you'll be sure to mention this part in your email to Mr. Schumer, highlighting some Liberal examples as well as the Cobnservative, right?

fukushimajin · 11-05-2008, 03:43 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2844148]Fuku, Red Lion was decided in a distinctly different broadcasting environment, with limited station frequencies available to listeners doled out by an FCC charged with protecting the public interest, and that was the rationale underlying the decision. That landscape no longer exists, and Red Lion's holding is (or should be) dead letter[/QUOTE]

In NYC, I might agree with you. But if you travel beyond the ring of suburbs most people are still just as limited in their radio options as in 1969. I'm open to discussion on whether cable or satellite should be included.

fukushimajin · 11-05-2008, 03:44 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2844162]Great! I assume you'll be sure to mention this part in your email to Mr. Schumer, highlighting some Liberal examples as well as the Cobnservative, right?[/QUOTE]

Can't think of any, but, if I do, I sure will.

Warfish · 11-05-2008, 03:44 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844167]Can't think of any, but, if I do, I sure will.[/QUOTE]

Can't think of a single example of a Liberally biased media outlet, eh?

sackdance · 11-05-2008, 03:47 PM

[QUOTE=Piper;2843492]Chuck Schumer makes me embarassed to be a NY'er.:mad:[/QUOTE]
Popular guy in the California savings & loan industry, too. Should be in jail, instead he's been, like Frank, granted a de facto promotion.

The upside to yesterday is by this time next year the GOP will be a supercharged battery. Hopefully, they find direction and leaders - because this crew of dopes have already proven themselves prone to failure...now they'll have no one else to blame for poor governance (but don't think they won't try...)

fukushimajin · 11-05-2008, 03:49 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2844168]Can't think of a single example of a Liberally biased media outlet, eh?[/QUOTE]

On the radio? Nope.

Warfish · 11-05-2008, 03:56 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844177]On the radio? Nope.[/QUOTE]

Well, I was asking about all "over the air" media, Radio, TV and Satelite.

But since you specifiy Radio, are you saying air america is not a Liberally biased media outlet then, since you claim to be unaware of any, yet you certainly know they exist?

JetPotato · 11-05-2008, 03:58 PM

[QUOTE=pauliec;2844039]It beings already. Liberals don't care about the constitution!

I'm off to the gun store. I have to load up before January.[/QUOTE]

I'm in.

fukushimajin · 11-05-2008, 04:06 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2844184]Well, I was asking about all "over the air" media, Radio, TV and Satelite.

But since you specifiy Radio, are you saying air america is not a Liberally biased media outlet then, since you claim to be unaware of any, yet you certainly know they exist?[/QUOTE]

I thought that was gone -- I hear O'reilly say its out of business & bankrupt like every week. In any case, go ahead, regulate AA away.

Not certain how I feel about other forms of over the air media -- the fact that you have to pay for cable & satellite is a factor requiring deeper thought. In my view, the FCC should be regulating the industry,generally, such that it serves the public interest. In what way has the radio industry improved since the end of the fairness doctrine? To me, its less diverse and devotes more air-time to advertising than it was before.

Warfish · 11-05-2008, 04:11 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844199]I thought that was gone -- I hear O'reilly say its out of business & bankrupt like every week. In any case, go ahead, regulate AA away.[/quote]

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844199]Not certain how I feel about other forms of over the air media -- the fact that you have to pay for cable & satellite is a factor requiring deeper thought. In my view, the FCC should be regulating the industry,generally, such that it serves the public interest. In what way has the radio industry improved since the end of the fairness doctrine? To me, its less diverse and devotes more air-time to advertising than it was before.[/QUOTE]

Well, no one mentioned cable, as it doesn;t use the airwaves. Of course, it DOES utilize public land (i.e. it's cables go under public property all over the place) so perhaps it too should be managed by the Govt.

How do you define "diverse" for Radio? I can dial up any form of music, news or either side of teh Political issues of teh day any time I wish, on public radio. What lack of diversity are you seeing, i.e. what isn't represented?

How does Hip Hop Radio "serve the publci interest" or Rock Radio? Ot television on network TV (uses the airwaves)? Entertainment? Based on ratings Radio could make the same argument.

MnJetFan · 11-05-2008, 04:12 PM

[QUOTE=Ciaran;2843614]hey, any policy that puts sean hannity out of a job is good with me.[/QUOTE]

Just dont listen to him, thats all! DAH!

King Ryan · 11-05-2008, 04:14 PM

personally I think it's stupid and disgusting if they do pursue it

doggin94it · 11-05-2008, 05:00 PM

[quote=fukushimajin;2844166]In NYC, I might agree with you. But if you travel beyond the ring of suburbs most people are still just as limited in their radio options as in 1969. I'm open to discussion on whether cable or satellite should be included.[/quote]

Forget satellite radio and digital radio; consider that it wasn't until the 1970s that [B]FM [/B]radio was commonly used. And the issue isn't whether there are enough [B]stations[/B] serving a particular area; the question is whether there is enough [B]frequency[/B] serving the area that the radio airwaves are no longer considered such a limited resource that running a radio station is akin to performing a public trust.

Those days are long gone.

Jason423 · 11-05-2008, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2844184]Well, I was asking about all "over the air" media, Radio, TV and Satelite.

But since you specifiy Radio, are you saying air america is not a Liberally biased media outlet then, since you claim to be unaware of any, yet you certainly know they exist?[/QUOTE]

NovaM, NPR...

I just dont see how anyone can favor the fairness doctrine. When WABC used to put on guys like Richard Bey he did terrible which is why he lost his job and was replaced by conservative radio. NY is as liberal an area as there is and the programs just simply do not get ratings. Air America had a ton of publicity behind it when it launched and it was basically a flop in the area. It didnt have the strongest signal in the world but people didnt want to listen because it wasnt very polished and not very good. AA as so ridiculously liberal that ooeir news updates would feature a pretty harsh joke at the expense of George Bush or later on John McCain. WABC would never get away with doing something like that during their news breaks.

SONNY WERBLIN · 11-05-2008, 05:11 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843624]Look at the pure politics: Obama will be looking for ways to distinguish himself from Congress, which is much less popular than he is. Can you think of an easier way to score points with independent voters than vetoing nonsense like the Fairness Doctrine?

It would be political gold for him.

I think you would concede that the guy can read polls and is politically shrewd in general.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But this does not matter. The senate is not fillerbuster-proof. So it would never get out og the Senate.

11-05-2008, 02:29 PM	#41
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2843834]I frankly don't care about this issue much -- radio is a wasteland since consolidation and everybody knows it. Listeners vanishing every year. Why bother with fairness doctrine? Schumer, Emanuel & Obama just proved yesterday how weak and ineffectual the talk radio crowd really is.[/QUOTE] It beings already. Liberals don't care about the constitution! I'm off to the gun store. I have to load up before January.

11-05-2008, 03:22 PM	#42
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=pauliec;2844039]It beings already. Liberals don't care about the constitution! I'm off to the gun store. I have to load up before January.[/QUOTE] I've already got mine. First, freedom of speech and use of a licensed public airway are two different things. Second, I said "why bother with the fairness doctrine?" Third, In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld[B] (by a vote of 8-0)[/B] the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically,now it is up to the discretion of the FCC. Evidence once again that Conservatives just say stuff --without any basis in fact or reality. Also, where were all you brave Constitutional Warriors when GW Dummy was wiretapping whoever based on his "inherent authority"? Oh that's right you were listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly tell you all day that it was just fine. You know, thanks to this dumb thread -- I read the case & related history and now am fully in support of the fairness doctrine and will call Chuck S. to say: go for it.

11-05-2008, 03:26 PM	#43
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844130]I've already got mine. First, freedom of speech and use of a licensed public airway are two different things. Second, I said "why bother with the fairness doctrine?" Third, In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld[B] (by a vote of 8-0)[/B] the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically,now it is up to the discretion of the FCC. Evidence once again that Conservatives just say stuff --without any basis in fact or reality. Also, where were all you brave Constitutional Warriors when GW Dummy was wiretapping whoever based on his "inherent authority"? Oh that's right you were listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly tell you all day that it was just fine. You know, thanks to this dumb thread -- I read the case & related history and now am fully in support of the fairness doctrine and will call Chuck S. to say: go for it.[/QUOTE] So I assume you support it for TV and Satelite as well too, right? As Both must travel through the "publicly owned airwaves" to reach their respective recipients. And you support a 50/50 Right/Left Panel to do the Review, in the interest of fairness, right?

11-05-2008, 03:30 PM	#44
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=fukushimajin;2844130]I've already got mine. First, freedom of speech and use of a licensed public airway are two different things. Second, I said "why bother with the fairness doctrine?" Third, In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld[B] (by a vote of 8-0)[/B] the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically,now it is up to the discretion of the FCC. Evidence once again that Conservatives just say stuff --without any basis in fact or reality. Also, where were all you brave Constitutional Warriors when GW Dummy was wiretapping whoever based on his "inherent authority"? Oh that's right you were listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly tell you all day that it was just fine. You know, thanks to this dumb thread -- I read the case & related history and now am fully in support of the fairness doctrine and will call Chuck S. to say: go for it.[/quote] Fuku, Red Lion was decided in a distinctly different broadcasting environment, with limited station frequencies available to listeners doled out by an FCC charged with protecting the public interest, and that was the rationale underlying the decision. That landscape no longer exists, and Red Lion's holding is (or should be) dead letter

11-05-2008, 03:37 PM	#45
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;2844143]So I assume you support it for TV and Satelite as well too, right? As Both must travel through the "publicly owned airwaves" to reach their respective recipients. And you support a 50/50 Right/Left Panel to do the Review, in the interest of fairness, right?[/QUOTE] Sure, sounds good.

11-05-2008, 03:38 PM	#46
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844160]Sure, sounds good.[/QUOTE] Great! I assume you'll be sure to mention this part in your email to Mr. Schumer, highlighting some Liberal examples as well as the Cobnservative, right?

11-05-2008, 03:43 PM	#47
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2844148]Fuku, Red Lion was decided in a distinctly different broadcasting environment, with limited station frequencies available to listeners doled out by an FCC charged with protecting the public interest, and that was the rationale underlying the decision. That landscape no longer exists, and Red Lion's holding is (or should be) dead letter[/QUOTE] In NYC, I might agree with you. But if you travel beyond the ring of suburbs most people are still just as limited in their radio options as in 1969. I'm open to discussion on whether cable or satellite should be included.

11-05-2008, 03:44 PM	#48
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;2844162]Great! I assume you'll be sure to mention this part in your email to Mr. Schumer, highlighting some Liberal examples as well as the Cobnservative, right?[/QUOTE] Can't think of any, but, if I do, I sure will.

11-05-2008, 03:47 PM	#50
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,889	[QUOTE=Piper;2843492]Chuck Schumer makes me embarassed to be a NY'er.:mad:[/QUOTE] Popular guy in the California savings & loan industry, too. Should be in jail, instead he's been, like Frank, granted a de facto promotion. The upside to yesterday is by this time next year the GOP will be a supercharged battery. Hopefully, they find direction and leaders - because this crew of dopes have already proven themselves prone to failure...now they'll have no one else to blame for poor governance (but don't think they won't try...)

11-05-2008, 03:49 PM	#51
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;2844168]Can't think of a single example of a Liberally biased media outlet, eh?[/QUOTE] On the radio? Nope.

11-05-2008, 03:56 PM	#52
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844177]On the radio? Nope.[/QUOTE] Well, I was asking about all "over the air" media, Radio, TV and Satelite. But since you specifiy Radio, are you saying air america is not a Liberally biased media outlet then, since you claim to be unaware of any, yet you certainly know they exist?

11-05-2008, 03:58 PM	#53
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=pauliec;2844039]It beings already. Liberals don't care about the constitution! I'm off to the gun store. I have to load up before January.[/QUOTE] I'm in.

11-05-2008, 04:06 PM	#54
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;2844184]Well, I was asking about all "over the air" media, Radio, TV and Satelite. But since you specifiy Radio, are you saying air america is not a Liberally biased media outlet then, since you claim to be unaware of any, yet you certainly know they exist?[/QUOTE] I thought that was gone -- I hear O'reilly say its out of business & bankrupt like every week. In any case, go ahead, regulate AA away. Not certain how I feel about other forms of over the air media -- the fact that you have to pay for cable & satellite is a factor requiring deeper thought. In my view, the FCC should be regulating the industry,generally, such that it serves the public interest. In what way has the radio industry improved since the end of the fairness doctrine? To me, its less diverse and devotes more air-time to advertising than it was before.

11-05-2008, 04:11 PM	#55
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844199]I thought that was gone -- I hear O'reilly say its out of business & bankrupt like every week. In any case, go ahead, regulate AA away.[/quote] :rolleyes: [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2844199]Not certain how I feel about other forms of over the air media -- the fact that you have to pay for cable & satellite is a factor requiring deeper thought. In my view, the FCC should be regulating the industry,generally, such that it serves the public interest. In what way has the radio industry improved since the end of the fairness doctrine? To me, its less diverse and devotes more air-time to advertising than it was before.[/QUOTE] Well, no one mentioned cable, as it doesn;t use the airwaves. Of course, it DOES utilize public land (i.e. it's cables go under public property all over the place) so perhaps it too should be managed by the Govt. How do you define "diverse" for Radio? I can dial up any form of music, news or either side of teh Political issues of teh day any time I wish, on public radio. What lack of diversity are you seeing, i.e. what isn't represented? How does Hip Hop Radio "serve the publci interest" or Rock Radio? Ot television on network TV (uses the airwaves)? Entertainment? Based on ratings Radio could make the same argument.

11-05-2008, 04:12 PM	#56
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	[QUOTE=Ciaran;2843614]hey, any policy that puts sean hannity out of a job is good with me.[/QUOTE] Just dont listen to him, thats all! DAH!

11-05-2008, 04:14 PM	#57
King Ryan take a guess Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Montville, NJ Posts: 5,473	personally I think it's stupid and disgusting if they do pursue it

11-05-2008, 05:00 PM	#58
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=fukushimajin;2844166]In NYC, I might agree with you. But if you travel beyond the ring of suburbs most people are still just as limited in their radio options as in 1969. I'm open to discussion on whether cable or satellite should be included.[/quote] Forget satellite radio and digital radio; consider that it wasn't until the 1970s that [B]FM [/B]radio was commonly used. And the issue isn't whether there are enough [B]stations[/B] serving a particular area; the question is whether there is enough [B]frequency[/B] serving the area that the radio airwaves are no longer considered such a limited resource that running a radio station is akin to performing a public trust. Those days are long gone.

11-05-2008, 05:10 PM	#59
Jason423 All Pro Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 9,671	[QUOTE=Warfish;2844184]Well, I was asking about all "over the air" media, Radio, TV and Satelite. But since you specifiy Radio, are you saying air america is not a Liberally biased media outlet then, since you claim to be unaware of any, yet you certainly know they exist?[/QUOTE] NovaM, NPR... I just dont see how anyone can favor the fairness doctrine. When WABC used to put on guys like Richard Bey he did terrible which is why he lost his job and was replaced by conservative radio. NY is as liberal an area as there is and the programs just simply do not get ratings. Air America had a ton of publicity behind it when it launched and it was basically a flop in the area. It didnt have the strongest signal in the world but people didnt want to listen because it wasnt very polished and not very good. AA as so ridiculously liberal that ooeir news updates would feature a pretty harsh joke at the expense of George Bush or later on John McCain. WABC would never get away with doing something like that during their news breaks.

11-05-2008, 05:11 PM	#60
SONNY WERBLIN Veteran Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,360	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843624]Look at the pure politics: Obama will be looking for ways to distinguish himself from Congress, which is much less popular than he is. Can you think of an easier way to score points with independent voters than vetoing nonsense like the Fairness Doctrine? It would be political gold for him. I think you would concede that the guy can read polls and is politically shrewd in general.[/QUOTE] I agree. But this does not matter. The senate is not fillerbuster-proof. So it would never get out og the Senate.