The Fairness Doctrine and Swearing to tell the truth

[BOSSHOG]

Interesting that patriotic conservatives have a problem with these two items. limbaugh and hannity whine when bringing back the fairness doctrine is brought up. When ray-gun got rid of it, he gave birth to the "immoral" right wing noise machine and they haven't stopped manipulating and distorting and lying since. A failed parent indeed. And what is wrong with swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth? I mean if karl and his patriotic co-horts "have nothing to hide" what's the problem. I often see ltte's that state "bush did not lie under oath." Does that mean its okay to lie if you are not under oath? We spend so much time combatting those who have never done anything FOR our country and yet enjoy so much their stay in the land of the free.

[Vexatious Ape]

1. Oh how they cry.

Neal Boortz(chicken hawk) is actually saying that if the Dem's win the White House in 08, talk radio will be dead.

[POAS]

3. I thought it died in the 80's!!!!

[Vexatious Ape]

9. It did. But Boortz thinks the Dems will bring it back.

[POAS]

2. Ya know I started screaming

the day the fairness doctrine ended and the reaction I got at the time was "what the hell is the Fairness Doctrine".

I'm sure everyone at DU knows now and most likely knew then exactly what it is (or rather was) and why it is important to bring it back. The general population however is ignorant about the doctrine, nor are they aware of how it's loss has resulted in limited access to a variety of ideas.

[BOSSHOG]

4. The right wing poison spreads like cancer

I often read letters to the editor where an obvious limbaughian dumbass states that something another letter writer has written is wrong and false, when just the opposite is true. I ain't very smart but I research to know stuff, conservatives don't give a fuck about knowing stuff and their ignorance fuels the right wing noise machine engines. The Fairness Doctrine was an extensive part of my journalism studies back in the 70's. Bring it back; unless of course conservatives don't want to be fair.

[POAS]

5. I'm glad your an "expert" then

because my recollection may need correcting.

I believe that one aspect of the F.D. was the restriction on how many stations could be owned by corporate entities or individuals in a "market", thereby ensuring a variety of voices.

The arguement against that was that it restricted business and competition. That getting rid of those restictions would increase competition and the variety of content. Well the free market is not designed to enhance competition, it is designed to favor an economic Darwinism and that is the principle that allowed near monopoly status of media ownership in many markets and a huge reduction in content variety.

The result is evident in the media boycott that nearly ruied the careers of the "Dixie Chicks" for exercising their freedom of speech.

[BOSSHOG]

6. You are right

and your post reminds me of another one I saw today; something to the effect: White House says restricting no-bid contracts will hurt competition. They are totalling fucking insane. Locally, the station that broadcast AAR in New Orleans was recently eaten by the gargantuan right wing machine to broadcast reruns of programming on one of their other stations. Awesome variety indeed.

[POAS]

7. Glad to hear I'm not totally senile..........yet

[BOSSHOG]

8. Another strange coincidence

We talk of getting senile as we grow older. When I was in college studying wasn't a priority but I picked up a few things here and there. I liked the J-classes but I almost got my ass railroaded out of school because of Chemisty and Botany. A scientist I ain't.