11 Responses

1. 

   1)

   tones said on 6/3/2011 @ 10:21am PT: [Permalink]

   isn’t it true that if the fairness doctrine were in place that Fox news would be illegal?

2. 

   2)

   Brad Friedman said on 6/3/2011 @ 11:15am PT: [Permalink]

   Tones @ 1 asked:

   isn’t it true that if the fairness doctrine were in place that Fox news would be illegal?

   No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

   For a start, the Fairness Doctrine, as it existed had to do only with broadcast airwaves (which are owned by the people). Fox “News” is on cable, not the people’s broadcast airwaves.

   There are other reasons why neither Fox nor any such news outfit would be “illegal” under the Fairness Doctrine (even if it were broadened, somehow, to apply to cable), but I’ll let my initial response to your question sink in before I add any more to it — in response to any follow-up query you might have.

3. 

   3)

   Dredd said on 6/3/2011 @ 1:20pm PT: [Permalink]

   They are part and parcel of the resistance to a close look, a close following of the money, to see where the powers that be are “hiding out”.

   So, truth will lose out.

4. 

   4)

   d said on 6/3/2011 @ 9:35pm PT: [Permalink]

   Long live “Bully-tainment”

5. 

   5)

   Bamboo Harvester said on 6/3/2011 @ 11:15pm PT: [Permalink]

   Rest In Peace ~ Jack ~ If there’s a heaven he’s there

6. 

   6)

   Dan-In-PA said on 6/4/2011 @ 4:31am PT: [Permalink]

   We can live without a fairness doctrine. IMHO, what we really need is an accuracy doctrine.

7. 

   7)

   Dredd said on 6/4/2011 @ 5:19am PT: [Permalink]

   Well said Dan-In-Pa …

8. 

   8)

   Ernest A. Canning said on 6/4/2011 @ 6:18am PT: [Permalink]

   Actual, I would have to take exception to Brad’s description of The Fairness Doctrine as “controversial.”

   The doctrine was derived from the Federal Communications Act of 1934. As Bill Moyers observed in Moyers on America:

   The aim of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was to promote the “public interest” and to prevent a monopoly of commercial values at the expense of democratic values; “to insure that the official view of reality — corporate or government — was not the only view of reality to reach the people.”

   Had the law kept pace with technology, that principle would have been extended to digital cable.

   The Fairness Doctrine is no more “controversial” than democracy itself.

9. 

   9)

   Electricphoto said on 6/4/2011 @ 8:56am PT: [Permalink]

   This is the threat to their entire empire of deception – they are tariffed of the fairness doctrine.

   SEE WHO REMOVED IT– Jude Ken Starr!

   It is a two sentence rule that can ruin their propaganda factory. One sentence stops censorship of stories they need suppressed (like much of the reporting here on election rigging), the other rule provides for voices with differing views be heard ON THE SAME STATION. This rule provides that someone can point out their lies on their station.

   The FOX and AM radio propaganda factory MUST stop these voices and stories from their stations. A smart 10 year old could bring down Limbaugh if allowed access to his show.

   Imagine what FOX’s propaganda about election fraud would look like if they were required to cover the election stories that are reported here.

   THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE CAN TOPLE THEIR BILLION DOLLAR PROPAGANDA FACTORY.

   It uses the power of free speech to do it. THEY NEED THE POWER TO SUPPRESS STORIES AND OTHER VOICES.

   This is the most dangerous threat their media empire faces.

10. 

    10)

    Steve said on 6/4/2011 @ 11:30pm PT: [Permalink]

    Electricphoto, Fox’s propaganda is about so-called VOTER FRAUD (not election fraud).

    Bamboo Harvester- glad to see you don’t dislike ALL doctors after reading comments you made elsewhere.

11. 

    11)

    Cosimo diRondo said on 6/5/2011 @ 5:43am PT: [Permalink]

    Funny how the GOP complains about the liberal media, but wants to remove their own protections from them. Um, yeah.