toldailytopic: The Fairness Doctrine. Do you agree or disagree with the recent push t

[Cracked]

Forcing people to be "fair" strikes me as the height of unintentional irony.

The Fairness Doctrine's fine in theory but rotten in practice. People can seek out their own news and sources.

I'm thinking that such a thing my help to legitimize false information. However, we put disclaimers on everything now a days, why not our news? Certainly, ignorant people should know (that is, expressly told and reminded) that what they are getting is truth mixed with opinion.

 

[Granite]

I'm thinking that such a thing my help to legitimize false information. However, we put disclaimers on everything now a days, why not our news? Certainly, ignorant people should know (that is, expressly told and reminded) that what they are getting is truth mixed with opinion.

Well as far as I'm concerned anything from big media is false information. I'm not sure what good a disclaimer would do. Unless it said YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.

 

[Sherman]

Fairness doctrine in itself is unfair. It would be used to legitimize every crackpot idea out there. It isn't going to fix the problem of nut cases going out and shooting people.

 

[Lave]

That's for sure. In fact we are now learning that 'He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. And he didn't listen to political radio'.

I think that's where the little nugget of truth is buried in all of this. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether Loughner was a crazy liberal or a crazy conservative; what matters is that the guy was craaaazy. :hammer:

Of course, that's not going to stop people on either side from using a tragedy to promote their agenda. In the liberals' case, that's the Fairness Doctrine. The actual bearing it would have on things like this shooting seems frankly inconsequential to me; that being said, I doubt it'll ever get anywhere. Once the aftermath of the tragedy wears down, so will the politicians.

To address the OP a bit more personally, I think the Fairness Doctrine is pretty idiotic. You know, with the whole freedom of press thingy and all. There are issues where I swing to the left a bit, but all of the "Baaawww, I'm offended" stuff isn't one of them.

 

[kmoney]

I don't agree with the Fairness Doctrine for the same reasons already given.

I'm not following how this is related to Loughner though. Are they implying he only listened to right-wing news and it made him want to kill Gifford? :squint:

 

[nicholsmom]

Fair is a sort of contest and celebration that comes to each county some time in the summer :thumb: I think they call it a Fair because they hope that the judging is fair, that the vendors will charge a fair price, and that any carnies will have fair games - by which I mean, the sort that you might find at a Fair...

I love Fair food :chew:

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you mean like how ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and the rest of the mainstream media is completely liberal?

Pretty much as liberal as America. That's why they collectively have a bigger share than the wackos.

Would you support forcing those media outlets to voice conservative views?

Absolutely. The airwaves don't belong to them, any more than they belong to Australian millionaires.

It's not symmetrical, Knight. Most of us think allowing all voices to be heard is a good thing. Keep in mind, if the company actually owns the medium, then they have a right to censor whatever they want. If they borrow the airwaves, then they have a responsibility.

Repealing the Fairness Doctrine was the frootcake full employment act. And I sympathize. When the doctrine was in force, the fringe element, both left and right had a hard time getting an audience.

But the airwaves still don't belong to them.

 

[Cracked]

Well as far as I'm concerned anything from big media is false information. I'm not sure what good a disclaimer would do. Unless it said YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.

Lol...
Not everything they say is a lie. Thus, we need a simple, constant disclaimer in order to jar ignorant head-nodders into some understanding that they get biased news (often).

 

[oatmeal]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 12th, 2011 11:19 AM

toldailytopic: The Fairness Doctrine. Do you agree or disagree with the recent push to bring it back?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

I oppose the "fairness" doctrine.

It will only allow wierdos to inject their ideas into the media.

Ie, liberals, communists, fascists, etc.

This is God loving freedom loving country.

Not a place for liberals and their stormtroopers.

They have the freedom of speech as well as anyone else.

They can start their own version of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc.

Oh, wait, they did and no one listened to their hatefulness to the USA and it Constitution.

oatmeal

 

[The Barbarian]

Fairness doctrine in itself is unfair. It would be used to legitimize every crackpot idea out there.

And we have Rupert Murdoch for that, after all.

It isn't going to fix the problem of nut cases going out and shooting people.

Unfortunately not. All it would take is Americans with enough backbone to stand up to the system and say "from here on out, if you even hint at violence as a political tool, we will run you out of office."

And yes, Obama talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight is another reason for me to not vote for him.

 

[some other dude]

...if you even hint at violence as a political tool, we will run you out of office

lol

and how does one "run you out of office" without using violence?

Don a warmup suit and invite them to go jogging?

Or perhaps by waging a vigorous campaign and beating their opponent?

 

[JoeyArnold]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 12th, 2011 11:19 AM

toldailytopic: The Fairness Doctrine. Do you agree or disagree with the recent push to bring it back?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

I believe in fair neutral balanced education. In other words, I believe in the rare exposure to both sides to a story, especially in regards to historical accounts or the mass media, the free speech religion, news in general, which are jabbed with racist, bias, stereotypical, closed-minded, sarcastic, one-sided alterations or lies or half-truths or what have you, in regards to anything, anybody, anywhere, secular, religious, the problems are everywhere.

That is why I vote for a fair re-educational act (non-religious doctrine).

 

[not4sure]

The Fairness Doctrine is being pushed by folks that want their ideas to dominate but know they are losing based on merits.

It's ideological welfare.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian writes:
All it would take is Americans with enough backbone to stand up to the system and say "from here on out, if you even hint at violence as a political tool, we will run you out of office."

and how does one "run you out of office" without using violence?

They are called "elections."

Don a warmup suit and invite them to go jogging?

Or perhaps by waging a vigorous campaign and beating their opponent?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone starts equating democracy with shooting people. If their leaders do it, why wouldn't their followers?

 

[chrysostom]

life is not fair
Fox is not fair

get over it

 

[some other dude]

They are called "elections."

Ahhhh - elections. Those things whereby office holders are voted out of office, not run out of office.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone starts equating democracy with shooting people. If their leaders do it, why wouldn't their followers?

So what non-violent words would you use to replace "campaign" and "beat"?

 

[some other dude]

life is not fair
Fox is not fair

get over it

I can accept that life is unfair. I just wish it was unfair in my favor more often.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
They are called "elections."

Ahhhh - elections. Those things whereby office holders are voted out of office, not run out of office.

Ask some politicians who lost the last couple of elections. "Run out of office" is a an apt description for many of them.

Barbarian on the idea that violence is appropriate political activity:
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone starts equating democracy with shooting people. If their leaders do it, why wouldn't their followers?

So what non-violent words would you use to replace "campaign" and "beat"?

I think it might be good to start with cross-hairs, "reload" and "second amendment solutions" before you get politically correct about traditional election nomenclature.

But then, if you think in those terms, democracy probably isn't your thing.

 

[nicholsmom]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
They are called "elections."

Ask some politicians who lost the last couple of elections. "Run out of office" is a an apt description for many of them.

Barbarian on the idea that violence is appropriate political activity:
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone starts equating democracy with shooting people. If their leaders do it, why wouldn't their followers?

I think it might be good to start with cross-hairs, "reload" and "second amendment solutions" before you get politically correct about traditional election nomenclature.

But then, if you think in those terms, democracy probably isn't your thing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

:think:

:listen: PS: democracy is not what we have for our governing system...

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
They are called "elections."

Ask some politicians who lost the last couple of elections. "Run out of office" is a an apt description for many of them.

Barbarian on the idea that violence is appropriate political activity:
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone starts equating democracy with shooting people. If their leaders do it, why wouldn't their followers?

I think it might be good to start with cross-hairs, "reload" and "second amendment solutions" before you get politically correct about traditional election nomenclature.

But then, if you think in those terms, democracy probably isn't your thing.

Nicholsmom writes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the beauty of it; politicians can be as vicious as the want, within the boundaries of the law, but we can still vote them down for it. Do you see the difference?

PS: democracy is not what we have for our governing system...

You better tell the Supreme Court. Democracy is how it works. It's why all the representatives we send to Washington have to be approved by the voters in their districts. It's why just ordinary people can even change the Constitution if they decide to do so. The consent of the governed remains the ultimate power in American government, even if changing the Constitution is so difficult and lengthy that a short-term whim can't do it.

Democracy is built into the American form of government. It's just that the founders knew that a pure democracy was just a way-station on the way to anarchy and tryanny. So they diluted it with a form of republican constitutional government that would make temporary whims and the tyranny of the majority less potent.

As Washington said when he advocated a bicameral legislature for the nation, the Senate was there to cool the ardor for new laws and to reflect carefully on changes.