What is Digg?114 Comments
- Minarchian, on 08/18/2008, -14/+63"it's about prolonging the fantasy that our nation's broadcasting/telecommunications infrastructure can effectively serve us without government playing a constructive role. "
That's no fantasy. It's called rule of law and following the Constitution to keep government out of free speech content and the infrastructure that carries it. Having government involved in most everything eventually destroys it. - govsucks, on 08/18/2008, -10/+57That this thing is called "Fairness Doctrine" shows that we have lost all understanding or the words fair and free.
- dha07030, on 08/18/2008, -12/+53One step closer to state run media...
- protogenxl, on 08/18/2008, -11/+46I want it to come back.
Dan Aykroyd: I'm station manager Dan Akroyd. During the past few weeks in Los Angeles, actor Lee Marvin and his former live-in companion Michelle Triola Marvin have been in court to settle her claim that he owes her half his income from the six years they lived together. That is the subject of tonight's Point-Counterpoint. Jane will take the pro-Michelle Marvin point, while I will take the anti-Michelle Triola counterpoint. Jane?
Jane Curtin: Dan, times change and so does the nature of relationships. People are reluctant to get married these days and looking at divorce statistics, who can blame them. But the lack of a piece of paper does not neccessarily mean a lack of a total commitment. A woman is this modern-day relationship may well give up all her personal pursuits, as Michelle Marvin claims she did, to give her full support to her man's career. And Michelle Marvin is just asking that the courts recognize that reality. Dan, there's an old saying: "Behind every successful man there's a woman." A loving, giving, caring woman. But you wouldn't know about that, Dan, because there's no old saying about what's behind a miserable failure. [ gives a look of arrogance ]
Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut! Bagged-out, dried-up, slunken meat like you and Michelle Triola know the rules. If you want a contract, sign on the dotted line. Oh, but let's all shed a tear for poor Michelle Triola. There was only testimony that she had sexual intercourse over forty times with another man while living with actor Lee Marvin. But I suppose that sort of fashionable promiscuting means nothing to you, Jane, who hops from bed to bed with the frequency of a cheap ham radio. But hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn, and Michelle Triola, like a screeching, squealing, reptatious swamp sow is after actor Lee Marvin's last three million dollars. I guess what you and Michelle are saying is that when you're on your backs, the meter is running. Well, please spare us, gals, and tell us the rate's at the top. Then we can choose which two bit tarts and bargain basement sluts to shack up with.
Jane Curtin: That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. - inactive, on 08/19/2008, -13/+42Liberal view of Fairness = Taking away something because they object to it.
- inactive, on 08/19/2008, -16/+34 Yeah lets suppress freedom of speech because the content isnt to our liking....but call it FAIRNESS in some delusional belief that it is...LOL.
Liberals...yes YOU are the biggest Hypocrits on this planet. - inactive, on 08/19/2008, -6/+24Is there anyone who support the fairness doctrine? I'm curious as to how somebody could support the government controlling speech. Liberals don't really exist on the radio at all, but in fairness they dominate online.
- Mier, on 08/19/2008, -14/+32This guy is trying to warn you people. Just because air america couldn't cut it they want to force the more successful radio shows to put a token liberal on the next mic over. If people want to hear it they'll tune in. The market and or bad business decisions ruined that channel not some conspiracy.
You need to recognize that if they regulate radio it won't be long before they crawl into your favorite blog or news site. - kelly, on 08/19/2008, -0/+15Ya, we wouldn't want our fair and balanced digg for example to be overrun by a semblance of liberal bias
- Lambboy, on 08/19/2008, -1/+15I thought there was already Fairness Doctrine on the internet. I can spend ten minutes reading The Hufffington Post and Daily Kos and then spend ten minutes reading FOXnews.
- inactive, on 08/19/2008, -14/+27They don't seem to understand around here that 90% of the time when you hear "Fairness Doctrine," it's because a Democrat is complaining about conservative talk radio, and the lack of a profitable liberal alternative.
- headzoo, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12tThis is the same governent that came up with the"Patriot Act".
- afruff23, on 08/19/2008, -0/+11But would you want to? That sounds like torture to me.
- FTLJohnson, on 08/19/2008, -1/+10Most people don't even vote. Almost 2% of the country is incarcerated, many for laws that shouldn't even exist. Then, of the people who do vote, a goodly portion of them don't know what they are voting about, and probably couldn't even tell you that the sun is a star. (Statistically, this is likely true)
Government by the people is a FAIRY TALE. People vote for "the lesser evil" and we get vile scumbag politicians in office. The bile rises to the top in politics.
"A Good naturing vital role"? Government is NOT YOUR MOMMY. Get over it, Governments exist to protect corporations from responsibility for their actions, to fight wars bureaucrats that support them hope will make them wealthy, and to TAX THE BEJESUS out of the poor and middle class. Government is not your friend or family. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
I've been saying this about Net Neutrality OVER AND OVER AND OVER again... We don't have net neutrality now, and we're FINE. The internet is FINE.
Learn to leave it alone.... Get your NOSE out of business it doesn't BELONG in. It's NOT BROKEN. Stop trying to fix it. I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up on this one for all you super liberals. Seriously, you have got to realize that you are screwing yourselves. Don't blame the ***** republicans when the laws you are trying to create to "protect the internet" result in big fat new regulations that effectively censor and tax you. You are just as much (if not moreso) to blame than they are. The religious right has been clamoring for censorship for ages, and has been held at bay, but net neutrality laws will surely open the floodgates for government control and regulation.
You CANNOT give the government an inch... It will take, not just a mile, but all the roads.
If you had paid enough attention to know when to mind your own damn business... you wouldn't have caused this. Don't let this continue. Wake UP. Maybe some tinfoil would cause you to tune in to the frequency of those who aren't blindly obedient nonprofit puppets the wealthy. - sonicdevo, on 08/19/2008, -1/+10You know, the last thing we need is more bureaucracy... If the American people aren't intelligent enough to discriminate truth from dishonesty in the marketplace of media, then we don't deserve the freedoms we'll give up.
- kindpastor, on 08/19/2008, -2/+10"Fairness" is subjective and will the "Fairness doctrine" will reflect the idea of "fairness" as seen by the ruling political party. You do realize that don't you?
- scutter, on 08/19/2008, -8/+16Fail. The Democrats have been openly discussing bringing back the fairness doctrine.
- lurkerz, on 08/19/2008, -7/+14The article suggest that if the election "goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine."
They should just cleary state the following...
Barack Obama = yea
John Mccain = nea - chispito, on 08/19/2008, -5/+12They don't seem to understand around here that 90% of the time when you hear "Fairness Doctrine," it's because a Democrat is complaining about conservative talk radio, and the lack of a profitable liberal alternative.
- kindpastor, on 08/19/2008, -1/+8Who decides what counts as "another viewpoint"?
- BedlamX, on 08/19/2008, -1/+7 With the influx of cable and sat, radio and television do have at least 2 view points they just happen to be on different channels now days. The market should decide what is and isn't heard. Radio and Tv will get the point when the ratings hit and ad revenue either goes up or down. They survive and flourish or wither and die. It has always been the viewership that decides it.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/19/2008, -1/+7Hey, can we have two internets and just solve this?
The government can have the "safe one" with measured bandwidth, controlled access so that kids don't get the wrong things and P2P file sharers don't take advantage. With nice garden paths leading to Disney, and whatever craptastic thing someone paid to get front billing.
Then we can have the "people's" internet, With 911truth.org, Daily Kos, bigOilyOnes.com (no affiliation), Youtube, google, and all the crap we came to the internet for. We will unclutter YOUR internet, for which you can have all the captive audience you can scrounge up from the retirement home and the Elementary School Library who have no choice.
Or maybe we can just take all that extra bandwidth out there, and do a free WiMax network with google, where nobody controls a damn thing. Open season and wild west.
>> Because if you guys ever cared -- you would have gotten rid of the spam. Too late to pretend now. - aekdbbop, on 08/19/2008, -4/+9socialized health care, then redistribution of wealth, now government controlled media? good lord people.. wake up..
- flashback99, on 08/19/2008, -0/+5 thought they were describing the policies of the chinese government, but nope, its the US.
- nixfu, on 08/19/2008, -1/+6True.
- inactive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+5It is always "buyer beware". Especially concerning politics. Now you want mother government to take care of your thinking for you too?
- BedlamX, on 08/19/2008, -0/+5 I would say that organizations like NBC ABC CBS during the evening hours are considered NEWS and that they should report the news not create the news and should be unbiased. Whereas the Today Show, Good Morning America, ect are considered opinion shows where they have it in their own digression to put on the air what they want and highlight one particular side of a story. Talk radio has this right as well. Both points of view are being heard is just not on the same channel. The fairness doc would FORCE stations to place shows on their network even though it may be a dog in the rating and generate no ad revenue. Imagine if Rev3 were forced to put a show that opposed wine library because the fairness doctrine. They can call it sobriety a wine less life.
The free market through ratings and ad revenue will decide if that type of content on a particular show or channel will survive. IF you dont like what you are hearing turn the channel. It is not the governments job to dictate what is heard when and where.
As an example Imus was a victim of the free market. He did what he did, as a result of pressure from the likes of JJ and AS the ad revenue vanished he was relieved from his position. His fans could have come to his rescue but they chose not to. By doing this the free market decided his fate. In their eyes he went to far.
The Dems have no reason for this other than political gain. after all they could care less what the American people want anyway.
- Eldoo77, on 08/19/2008, -3/+8Agreed. 10 Seconds reading the Huffington Post is enough to make me puke.
- samson7842, on 08/19/2008, -0/+4The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media. And, that is where it should remain. Your blog would never have been included in it.
Where are you getting your info from? No one ever went to jail for not adhering to it. You could be fined, your broadcast license revoked or not renewed. But, there was no jail time because of it.
Also, liberal radio broadcasting outlets are against it also. If you weren't so caught up in your doctrine, you'd know that.
Actually, you are illustrating my point for me. If broadcast news outlets had to air both sides of the issue, you would not have these misconceptions of what the Fairness Doctrine did and did not do.
The FCC chairman is just trying to scare people like you. He knows that isn't how it works. - chmstar, on 08/19/2008, -6/+10Funny, when ever liberals talk about 'fairness' rest assured somebody is gonna lose rights, property, or wealth one way or another.
- thrashertm, on 08/19/2008, -2/+6Done right according to who? There is no way to avoid the conflict of interest of having the government that is supposed to be policed by the media regulating what is considered "fair" coverage.
- paidhima, on 08/19/2008, -2/+6http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406 ...
Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine. I'm sorry that actual facts have to get in the way of a good rant. - Aurabolt, on 08/19/2008, -3/+6Does this site ever have good news for Diggers?
I always get a bad feeling when I get linked there =( - freedomjoe, on 02/19/2009, -0/+3Do you even care that the President came out today and during the campaign AGAINST the fairness doc?
I mean, at what point will you people allow facts to interfere in your paranoid dreams of victimhood? - shupy, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3Yeah, facts confuse them. When another nutball takes his gun and kills someone because he's afraid Obama will take away free speech, people will wonder where he got that idea. Like the pour soul that killed a policeman because he was afraid Obama was going to take away his guns.
Liberals and democrats don't want to bring the fairness doctrine back and we don't want to take your guns away. - worldtechguy, on 08/19/2008, -2/+5The trouble with the "fairness doctrine" is that it is intended to attack one medium only. Talk radio. The fact of the matter is that, when we look at all media, we do have balance in our information sources. The reason socialists want to re-institute it is that there are more hours of conservative talk radio out there than there are liberal talk radio. But make no mistake, it's not a conservative slam-dunk.
True, there are no socialist Rush Limbaughs, but there are a crapload of local socialists out there on the radio and a bunch of them have small, yet significant syndication deals. The majority of TV news is socialist-leaning, especially when it comes to the national networks. The majority of newspapers are socialist-leaning. Yet the fact that talk radio leans conservative bugs the hell out of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. As socialists, they want complete media agreement with their point of view, as typical socialists do. Even some conservatives didn't like talk radio when it led the charge against the amnesty/immigration bill.
If the "fairness" doctrine is re-instituted, I will probably wind up in jail because I will not allow favorable opinions of socialists on my blog. How many of you will gladly allow opposing viewpoints on your blog? Remember, the FCC chairman said a few days ago that websites would probably have to be regulated under the "fairness" doctrine. http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080 ... - paidhima, on 08/19/2008, -3/+6http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406 ...
Obama does not support the fairness doctrine. - mikejna, on 08/19/2008, -1/+4Yes, corporate run media is SO much better.
- samson7842, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2True. But apparently you neglected to do the same for "Obama on the fairness doctrine." Because, if you had, you would have found this; "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz
- JigoroKano, on 08/20/2008, -1/+3And we had less global warming when we had more pirates.
- samson7842, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2Thats not true. Republicans got their issues out there. If the press where under the Democrat's control, how did Nixon, Reagan and all the other Republicans get elected? The press reported the news and the people decided what was in their best interest.
Think about it - JigoroKano, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2I think your intention is noble, but I also think it's a personal responsibility that one subject himself to opposition thinking and even engage in it. Without that willful engagement on your part, I don't know how much it is worth.
If one doesn't want to be fair, the Fairness Doctrine only makes it slightly more difficult to craft propaganda. The false dichotomy of a hardliner and softliner is probably an even more effective form of propaganda than a single pundit.
And as the article states, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't able to get anti-segregationists airtime to oppose segregationist propaganda. What could it afford in modern times? An opposition of Iraqi invasion? A condemnation of Georgia? Would the Fairness Doctrine have helped any of these things?
And you know that Creationists and Holocaust deniers would be able to use the Fairness Doctrine right? - freedomjoe, on 02/19/2009, -0/+2Do you even care that the President came out today and during the campaign AGAINST the fairness doc?
I mean, at what point will you people allow facts to interfere in your paranoid dreams of victimhood? - detokaal, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2And what makes them dominant?
Because conservatives have no where else to go, so they tune in to Rush. Liberals own government, education, media and courts by force or threat of force (see jailed protesters and murdered Christians around the globe). So conservatives have a lowly radio host - the one place free from nutty left-wing thought.
Leave us alone. - shupy, on 06/18/2009, -0/+2Uh no, Obama has said he clearly opposes the fairness doctrine. Right wingers are once again creating their own boogeyman to scare the little right wing kiddies.
Buried for more wingnut ditto head nonsense. - inactive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2Amendment I
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.
The Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional. - Atomic1fire, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2The internet should be as restricted as the law allows. and the law shouldnt be able to restrict it anymore then that,
Freedom of speech/press probably covers it considering
speech = communication by todays standards
Internets = form of communication and press as anyone could put anything there, though they could get arrested if it was illegal.
The internet is like the ultimate permit, you cant threaten someone, but you can disagree with them and create websites against their oppinion, as long as it does not lead to harassment. - DoctorDiamond, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2The article clearly states, "Barack Obama says he opposes the Fairness Doctrine."
- shupy, on 06/18/2009, -0/+2The only time I hear anything about the fairness doctrine is when some right winger uses it as another way to fire up their ignorant base.
No one is seriously considering bringing the fairness doctrine back. - shupy, on 06/17/2009, -0/+2The fairness doctrine did not ban free speech. It required that anyone using the public airwaves present opposing sides to every issue. This would not apple to cable or other private new outlets, only to the radio and television airwaves because that is considered public property.
By the way, this is another example of the right wing making an issue where there is none. Obama has already come out and said he does not want to see the fairness doctrine brought back. -
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is