Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: Chuck Shumer really really wants Fairness Doctrine (ie to restrict speech)

  1. #1

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

    [url]http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/05/inside-politics-64800309/[/url]

    ---

    Please, Chuck. Comparing opposing viewpoints to pornography?

    I find it interesting that when I Google News’d “chuck schumer fairness doctrine”, none of the major news websites came up.



    [i]Sen. Charles E. Schumer, awaiting what was expected to be bolstered Democratic majorities in the Senate and the House, spoke out Tuesday in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance popular conservative talk show hosts with liberals, who generally draw dismal ratings.

    "I think we should all be fair and balanced, don't you?" Mr. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said during an interview on the Fox News Channel.

    Mr. Schumer said critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

    "The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the [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." [/i]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    5,992
    That's just ridiculous. With all the other very important issues surrounding this country, he chooses to spend his time on that??

  3. #3
    It's done. The Fairness Doctrine will be Law within one year.

    Better get used to the idea now. Because it is what it is.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,412
    Chuck Schumer makes me embarassed to be a NY'er.:mad:

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2843479]It's done. The Fairness Doctrine will be Law within one year.

    Better get used to the idea now. Because it is what it is.[/QUOTE]

    If they actually pass that nonsense talk radio as we know it will be completely changed. You will see stations completely go off air if they cant simply stick someone like Hannity on the radio in prime time. These stations can not survive if they are forced to put a non money making no rating shows in these slots. The failure of Air American and almost every liberal talk show host that has been tried on major radio networks is well documented. It is absolutely ridiculous, going to cost us a fortune to have yet another watchgroup having to watch over radio programming and whatever other forms of media they claim this will affect.

    The whole idea behind the fairness doctrine is criminal and anti-American, IMO.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,245
    Also no more Political monologues from the late night talk shows any jokes about Obama would make you a racist..:eek:

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,440
    [QUOTE=Piper;2843492]Chuck Schumer makes me embarassed to be a NY'er.:mad:[/QUOTE]

    I don't like being the same species as Schumer.

  8. #8
    Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine. Hopefully he vetoes it if it passes congress.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843524]Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine. Hopefully he vetoes it if it passes congress.[/QUOTE]

    You have an Obama quote that backs this claim?

    Because there are plenty of quotes by Democrats saying they do support up, right up to and including Ms. Pelosi.

  10. #10
    The fairness doctrine will be one of the very first things they pass.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2843535]You have an Obama quote that backs this claim?

    Because there are plenty of quotes by Democrats saying they do support up, right up to and including Ms. Pelosi.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/25/spokesman-obama-opposes-the-fairness-doctrine/[/url]

    [QUOTE]There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the fairness doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama…

    “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.”[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843578][url]http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/25/spokesman-obama-opposes-the-fairness-doctrine/[/url][/QUOTE]

    Well, thank God for "hotair.com":rolleyes:

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    What a clown...


    I seriously hope this doesn't get passed...

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2843588]Well, thank God for "hotair.com":rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    It was an excerpt from Broadcasting & Cable, which is the bible for the industry that would be regulated in this case.

    Here's the whole original story:

    [url]http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html[/url]



    [QUOTE]Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

    There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

    By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 6:25:00 PM

    [B]There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.


    The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

    "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.[/B]

    [B]"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," [/B]Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

    The Fairness Doctrine issue flared up in recent days after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was talking about a Democratic push to reinstate it, although it was unclear at press time whether that was a new pledge or the restating of a long-held position.

    Conservative paper Human Events reported that Pelosi was not planning to bring to a vote a bill to block the reimposition of the doctrine.

    The paper went on to say that Pelosi “added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.’”

    But it was unclear whether Pelosi was talking about a push, or simply restating her long-held view that the doctrine should return.

    President George W. Bush pledged to veto any attempt to legislatively establish the doctrine, and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told B&C in an interview last fall that there were no plans to try to bring the doctrine back.

    One year ago, the House passed a bill, from Indiana Republican and former radio talker Mike Pence, that put a one-year moratorium on funding any Federal Communications Commission reimposition of the doctrine. Democrats, led by David Obey (D-Wis.), suggested that the amendment was a red herring, a nonissue and that it was being debated, such as it was -- no Democrats stood to oppose it -- to provide sound bites for conservative talkers and "yap yap TV," who had ginned up the issue.

    In a Shakespearian mood, Obey said the amendment was "much ado about nothing" and "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    It was a permanent version of that moratorium, also pushed by Pence, that Pelosi was reportedly saying would have no chance.

    But other Democrats suggested that the sticking point was the current administration, and some big names, including Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), talked about the possibility of bringing it back. Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) went so far as to say he would make the doctrine part of his media agenda.

    The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. The FCC found the doctrine unconstitutional back in 1987, and President Reagan vetoed an attempt by congressional Democrats to reinstate it.

    It is a sensitive topic with Republicans, who fear that Democrats will use it to try and rein in conservative talk radio, the rise of which followed the scrapping of the doctrine.

    In the wake of press reports about Pelosi's comments, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), a longtime foe of the doctrine, said its return would be "nothing less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media, and it is designed to squelch conservative speech on the airwaves."

    Pelosi's office had not returned calls at press time on what she said, and meant, by her comments to the paper.[/QUOTE]


    I don't doubt that Pelosi and Schumer want this. But, frankly, the best thing they could do for Obama politically would be to pass it and let him veto it.

  15. #15
    Yep, I believe any sort of conservative talk radio and Christian radio will cease to exist within the year. Very sad, very unConstitutional. I've also heard that because the FCC seats are appointed, (by whoever's in power), another avenue will be to simply not renew FCC radio licenses as they come up if they are conservative - type radio.

    I guess we better make an effort to enjoy decent radio while we can.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843602]I don't doubt that Pelosi and Schumer want this.[/QUOTE]

    Yep, no way it gets by Obama with the leadership of his Party and solid chunks of his Air America-esque base utterly behind it.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2843607]Yep, no way it gets by Obama with the leadership of his Party and solid chunks of his Air America-esque base utterly behind it.[/QUOTE]

    hey, any policy that puts sean hannity out of a job is good with me.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,412
    [QUOTE=Ciaran;2843614]hey, any policy that puts sean hannity out of a job is good with me.[/QUOTE]

    Very open minded of you:eek:

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2843607]Yep, no way it gets by Obama with the leadership of his Party and solid chunks of his Air America-esque base utterly behind it.[/QUOTE]

    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.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2843607]Yep, no way it gets by Obama with the leadership of his Party and solid chunks of his Air America-esque base utterly behind it.[/QUOTE]

    He certainly has the political equity to tell them no if he wants. He's kind of remade the party in his image with his 50 state strategy, ground game and fund raising prowess

    welcome to Obamunism..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us