If Dennis Kucinich could get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated...?

[kentuck]

with similar guidelines as before, I would support him for the Presidency. It is that important of an issue for me. It is right up there with the war in Iraq. Nothing would restore civility and fairness and free speech back to our political as much as would the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. Are you listening, Dennis? Get this reinstated and you will be a hero to more people than you know...

[Wiley50]

1. I Agree Wholeheartedly K&R

[MonkeyFunk]

2. I don't think

the Fairness Doctrine would have the impact a lot of people here THINK it would have.

It wouldn't affect cable TV, nor satellite radio.

While I think it should be reinstated for broadcast stations, I don't think it would lead to any great change in our political discourse.

[mdmc]

3. yes

[GregD]

4. 2-edged sword ya got there kentuck...

Thom Hartmann if concerned that the restoration of the fairness doctrine would be the doom of political talk radio.

This has to be crafted with some very careful language that cures more problems than it creates. Not sure what that looks like, but I don't want to listen to progressive radio but have to be forced to also hear RW lies on the same program.

Any thougts?

[originalpckelly]

5. I agree, but I still think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be brought back...

I don't think it will solve the deeper problem that Republicans and others do not wish to hear opposing points of view, but the Fairness Doctrine is less about that, and more about the fact that broadcasting spectrum is a limited resource licensed by a public agency.

Here is a Supreme Court case wherein the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine was upheld:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

[GregD]

6. ownership rules must certainly be repaired.

no question about that one...

[originalpckelly]

7. It's not just about ownership, but the way that there is a monothematic...

nature to most of the broadcast spectrum used for talk radio. (Only conservatives.) After reading the SCOTUS decision, it's very clear to me now why we need this.

[GregD]

9. so what's the answer?

Dictate the percentage of left/right talk that is allowed in a market?

Sounds like a big challenge. Important yes, but seems tough.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. We Had It For Years

It worked well. Since the FD ended, the US has moved very far to the right. Perhaps not cause and effect - but perhaps yes.

[JacksonWest]

33. Really? WE seem to be moving further to the left every year I live.

Michael Moore illustrates this in his last book, and if you look around-people become more tolerant and liberal as time passes. Look at gay rights and acceptance-for one. Even our right wing President is far more liberal then Reagan or Bush Sr. in terms of social issues. He's an ass, obviously, but our nation doesn't seem to be getting more conservative.

[kentuck]

34. Are you suggesting Michael Moore is as influential as Limbaugh and Hannity...

and O'Reilly, for example? You must be living in another universe. I suppose all the "liberal" influence is why George W Bush was "re-elected" in 2004? How did that mutant of history get "re-elected" if media is so liberal? Please explain?

[JacksonWest]

39. Gladly. And I was referring to the people, not the media.

George Bush got re-elected because the Democrats put up a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign. Kerry's a great guy-but he was a horrific campaigner. He didn't respond to the swift boat vets, and he was just horrific on the campaign trail.

Is Michael Moore as influential as Rush or Sean? I didn't suggest that, i just referred to a chapter in his last book. He pointed out how liberal most Americans are on social polices(like abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, National Health Care). If we want to debate who has a bigger influence-Michael Moore released the most popular documentary of all time and two best selling books that were in direct opposition to this administration and their war. The country is adamantly against the war, and Bush is one of the least popular Presidents of all time. Is this because of Michael Moore, Limbaugh, or Hannity? Or is this a reflection of the truth?

Rush has a sizable audience for Radio, as does Sean. But there isn't anyone that listens to Hannity that doesn't listen to Limbaugh. All in all, it's about 15 million people. Which is about five percent of this country. Now, Moore's movie made over 100 million dollars. Which means about 15 million people saw it in the theatre....

Either way, I think people like Moore do more to change minds of convince people then Rush or Hannity. He puts out products that have concise messages, and are entertaining. Hannity and Limbaugh blab on the radio all day, preaching to the choir.

[kentuck]

41. Reality does have a liberal bias...

I would agree.

[kentuck]

21. In the past, if a person was slandered or misrepresented....

he or she could request free time to set the record straight. They did not require the same amount of air time of the other show that did the misrepresenting - only enough time to counter the false charges. People were very conscious of rumors and innuendo that had no basis in facts. They can still say whatever they want, so long as it is truthful.

[JacksonWest]

35. I don't think the fairness doctrine exists to provide a response to false attacks.

It was a balancing tool, allowing-or mandating- a station provide a response to show both sides of an issue. Nor does it require you to provide a response during the actual time a view point is given. I thought a station just had to alot time-any time- to one side to formulate a response. So, if Rush and Sean get six hours-noon to six, the liberal response could be from midnight to six am. Or something.

Anyway, the fairness doctrine seems silly and unconstitutional(although it was upheld)-but do does everything the FCC does. I'd rather the issue of media ownership be dealt with then the actual content on the radio.

[kentuck]

38. You've been listening to too much Limbaugh..

It was not set in stone that there had to be a perfect "balance" of left or right in the previous Fairness Doctrine. As I recall, candidates could run as many ads as they wanted. However, if they said something in their ads that was untrue or challenged by their opponents, the stations were obligated to give the opponent time to respond to the false charge. That is how I recall it working in practice, although it may have been written differently...

[JacksonWest]

40. Why would you say that?

I've been listening to too much limbaugh....

[kentuck]

42. Because he puts out the same argument as you...

Just coincidence, perhaps?

[JacksonWest]

43. You seem to be the expert.

And I doubt Limbaugh is concerned with corporate ownership of the media. As it was, if I'm misinformed or incorrect, please tell me or point me in the right direction. Comparing me to Limbaugh seems a bit below the belt.

I just perused some info on the fairness doctrine, and it does appear that it allowed people who felt they were victims of personal attacks a chance to respond. It also allowed for a general counter balancing.

So, my hats off to you. The fairness doctrine did indeed allow someone the right to demand air time to respond to personal attacks. I didn't know that. That isn't the extent of the fairness doctrine...and I resent your implications that I'm parroting limbaugh.

[kentuck]

44. I apologize if you are discounting the information of Limbaugh...

He just happens to be the #1 person in America against the Fairness Doctrine. Why do you think that is?

[JacksonWest]

45. Because he's a patriot with no loyalties to any party and supports the first amendment

unconditionally? :sarcasm:

Or he makes a lot of personal attacks?

Or it gets the base fired up by demonstrating how liberals hate freedom?

I don't know. I don't really care. Limbaugh is Limbaugh. Preaching to the choir and all that. It isn't even that interesting to listen to. I've never understood the obsession some people have with right wing media folks. Just don't watch them. Limbaugh has the biggest ratings-and he's on the radio. When people are working. He cornered the market on unemployed freepers. Good for him. And then there's the number one conservative TV host-Bill O'Reilly. Nearly two million people a day. Wowwwww. He gets beat by reruns of King of Queens. Which isn't that bad of a show. Hell, I think half his audience is made up of people that hate him. O'Reilly, not Kevin James.

[Az]

8. Dennis is right on most of the issues but he is absolutely unelectable

And its all for entirely shallow reasons. He is a geek. He has a trophy wife that is significantly taller than him. He does not have a strong charismatic presense. He is short. It is sad but a major part of our electoral process is shallow popularity contest BS.

I find myself in agreement with Kucinich on most issues. But I have to honestly say that he simply cannot win the presidential election. He will be made a laughing stock by the repuke attack dogs and be torn to shreds.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Great! Let's run Kerry again!

He's tall and thin. Good speaking voice. Great hair. Not sweaty.

Yep, Kerry's electable all right.

[Az]

30. On shallow issues such as that yeah.

Kerry is much more electable. But he had issues that the repukes targetted as well including his wife who was the source of his money. They targetted that and made it effective in tearing him down.

Its shallow and wrong that such things are done but that is the politics of our nation at this moment. Failing to realize this is just willfully blinding ourselves.

[partylessinOhio]

12. "repuke attack dogs?" Why did you just tear Kucinich to shreds?

:yoiks:

[Az]

29. Not tearing him to shreads

I am just looking at what the repukes will do. You don't go blindly into a battle without figuring out what the opposition is going to attack.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Shhhhhh!!!! Psssst ---- Some Of Them No Likey Hearing Reality.

Yes, I agree with you. He is absolutely is on the right side of many issues, but the reality is he has no greater chance than Nader for Christ's sake.

[dweller]

23. pssst ... reality takes 2 or more in accord

you're sounding a bit desperate.

if DK 'is absolutely on the right side of many issues', all it takes is for you to vote for him also, and join the others that support that reality.
dp

[MaggieSwanson]

19. I beg your pardon.

While I disagree with much that you've stated, I cannot let this go unanswered: I have met Elizabeth Kucinich. She is beautiful, intelligent, and very much in love with Dennis. Calling her a trophy wife is insulting, and I wish you would re-consider you statement in regards to her.

Peace,

Maggie

[Az]

28. I am talking about other's shallow opinions

The apperance of their relationship is what will undo his campaign. It is shallow that people react that way but it is truth.

[Bitwit1234]

13. But another democrat has introduced the doctrine

and wants to get it passed. I forgot his name.Maybe Kunich should sign on with him.

[babylonsister]

18. Rep. Hinchey:

Rep Hinchey reintroduces bill to break media monopolies, reinstate Fairness Doctrine

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Rep._believes_Democra...

Concerns about monopolies and fears of a possible "fascist" takeover of the US media have prompted a Democratic congressman to push to restore the Fairness Doctrine, RAW STORY has learned.

"Media reform is the most important issue confronting our democratic republic and the people of our country," Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) said at the Free Press National Media Reform Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee last weekend. "This is a critical moment in history that may determine the future of our country…maybe forever."

Hinchey told RAW STORY he plans to reintroduce the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) that would break up media monopolies and restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Reagan administration.

“If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side,” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic—fundamental to a democracy.”-snip-

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Maybeeeee It Would Get Him Passed 4%. Maybeeeeee.

Just bein honest.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. I'm leaning towards supporting Dennis Kucinich

anyway, because of his overall views. I think that he would be a great President in the new age that is fast approaching, and he is equipped to lead us from the darkness of energy shortages and war to the Light.

[lonestarnot]

17. Unless someone I like better throws their hat in the ring, I'm voting

for him even if he doesn't!

[dweller]

22. same here, he has my vote regardless

and i'll support the request of the up thread poster, Elizabeth Kucinich is no 'trophy wife' and to regard her as such is insulting.

:kick: and R! for kentuck's post.

dp

[magellan]

26. Ditto

[kentuck]

20. First of all, Rush Limbaugh and Thom Hartman do not have to go...

Everyone will continue to have their shows. However, if they tell fraudulent tales or lies about someone, that someone has to be given time to respond. It is not going to do away with anyone - only their lies and character attacks.

[TroubleMan]

24. He's got my vote already.

nt.

[Pierzin]

25. Amen to that. Enforce it, and Break Up the medias monopoly on

markets. 10 companies now control 90% of the media in this country. No wonder people are brainwashed!

[kentuck]

27. This is exactly the reason Bush was able to get away with his fascist BS...

Because of the concentration of media in so few hands. They are more responsible than any other entity. other than Bush and Cheney themselves, for the mess we find ourself in, in my opinion.

[onenote]

31. here's a big media issue Dennis ought to jump on now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=152&topic_id=14348&mesg_id=14348

[onenote]

32. here's a big media issue Dennis ought to jump on now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=152&topic_id=14348&mesg_id=14348

[Imagevision]

36. Dennis Kucinich should debate Hillary, the man doesn't get fair credit!!

[Selatius]

37. Dennis Kucinich needs a hardcore staff of professionals to help run the campaign.

For the sake of simplicity, we're going to ignore the "he's an elf" and "he's too ugly" stuff and simply concentrate on message and execution.

Dennis' positions on the issues pretty much lend itself to a form of economic populism. This has historically done well with voters because most voters are workers whose primary income is payroll income instead of residual income.

The issue with Dennis is that what is his campaign staff going to be like? How will it perform? Will it hemorrhage staffers and have high turnover rates like it did in 2004?

If his staff is not functioning again like it did in 2004, he won't really be a serious contender for the presidential primaries.