Why the fairness act is so important.. it drives them over the edge

[Peacetrain]

The reason the talking heads of hell hound radio are so against the Fairness act, is that then radio, tv etc would have to program and equal amount of our side shows.

Well here is their argument (I am not making this up).. that liberal talk draws so few listeners, and the the drag of having to give us equal time, would cost them, (the media) money so they would say..the heck with that, and go back to music or something like that.

That is their argument.

Now you know why we are in the trouble we are in in this country. We have been lead with that type of thought process. They are delusional

:rofl:

[Traveling_Home]

1. I should know this but does the Fairness Act ...

cover more than radio--->"then radio, tv etc would have to program and(sic) equal amout of our side shows"?

[RC]

2. Fairness Doctrine

Overview

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 <1949>). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.<3> It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

More info:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

[onenote]

3. the Fairness Doctrine doesn't require programming an "equal amount" of our side's shows

What it required was stations provide a reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. Achieving that end is utterly subjective. For one thing, there are not necessarily just "two sides" to an issue. For another, a program like Hannity and Colmes arguably meets the test simply by having a host with a "opposing" viewpoint. The FD didn't work particularly well when it was around and it probably wouldn't work if it was reinstated and even more likely would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Its not a panacea, even though some people think it would be.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheDonkey]

5. Enjoy your stay

[PermanentRevolution]

6. Enjoy your brief stay...

You won't be missed.

[PermanentRevolution]

8. Wow, that was FAST!

Nice work, mods!

:toast:

[Symarip]

7. Take pictures while you're here

That way you can cherish your short stay.