Censorship: The New Amerikan Way
 

since Air America and all other attempts failed just censor


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113

and if they dare ask the wrong question restrain them


http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...a_hearing.html

Welcome to Cuba.

Wait!!! Scalia, Bork, Reagan etc. all worked to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. You had your way. Now, it's going back. Big deal!! Elections have consequences. IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP!! That's crap. LOL...It's just about opposing view points being represented. It's what we do on here all the time. As it is, you guys spend too much time listening to one view of an issue.

Oh, now you pick Sharpton up off the ground(after you've torn him apart for years,) and use him as an example?

Just amazing how people use him as an example of something wrong, and then turn around and use him to try to prove some Conservative bull is a good thing.

Why do you bring up Sharpton? I've never read anyone on here say they like him. So, how would his opinion have any worth in proving anything? After the Tawana Brawley case, it's amazing he gets any air-time at all. One of the reasons that thing in Oakland happened was a cancer like him. He has no career unless he can make it look like the police are the enemy of Black People. So, I am just asking, how is his opinion of value to anybody on here?

The Fairness Doctrine is total bullpucky ..... if you dont like hearing something dont listen to it , if you dont want to watch something dont watch it. I dont like hip hop and rap so I dont listen to those stations , but should those stations be forced to play rock because I dont like crap music , of course not. If someone doesnt like what they hear they can exercise their right to turn it the f*** off.

This isn't lefties crying. Look who started the thread. It's a response to the Farness Doctrine coming back(only reason it was gone was Reagan, Scalia, Bork etc.) It's about adding alternative views. I don't know how that's censorship.

"The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. "-Somebody who disagrees with Honu

Why does someone have to listen to something they dont like? Turn it off if you dont agree or dont want to hear it , then you can use another one of your freedoms to put something on that will make you smile.

Scuds the reasoning is total bullsheet dude and you know it , you are just looking for something to debate about .

actually, scuds is right. allowing the opposing point of view to be aired may be many things-but censorship wouldn't be one of those things. i don't know that the fairness doctrine will fly-it doesn't seem that liberal talk radio does nearly as well as conservative commercially. but the complete takeover of licenses by one side (for lack of a better way to put it) isn't exactly the american way either...

i read the first link. i'd be hard put to think that site is one to really get the whole story from, seeing as that freakish ann coulter is on the page.

Well, no, someone else wanted to debate about it. I didn't start the thread. Someone called it censorship. It's not censorship. Maybe a kid growing up in Alabama should be exposed to more than just the one view on their airways. You live in California, and you're assuming other areas have our choices of views to listen to. They don't. You're assuming there is access to alternative views everywhere.

So a kid in Alabama has no other source of information to see all points of view but a radio station? I didnt know they didnt have libraries or newspapers or internet or television in Alabama . I havent lived in California all my life and somehow I have always been able to get information when I needed it . I think they should give 4 billion dollars to Alabama in the stimulis package so they can have sources of information besides radio so that the children of the state can be informed .

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

Another point also , if I owned a radio station , I would play what I wanted to play and people who bought airtime would know it and if they didnt like they could feel very free to take their buisness elsewhere.

Scuds , come on , if you are of a certain faith should churches of other faiths be forced to preach your brand if you happen to show up at their church one day? Its about freedom to express , anyone who buys airtime as long as the people abide by the rules of the FCC they should be able to say their point of view without another view if they so choose. , if you dont like it you can buy airtime and advertise you are stating an opposing view and people can choose to listen or not.
Its not like we dont have choices in this country and that is what makes it so great , we can choose to be ,do and LISTEN to what we want as long as it doesnt break any laws.

Your view is totally misguided unless you live in a time warp. In 2009 there is hardly a lack of access to information or opposing views. In the pre-internet days where there were 3 network tv stations and limited radio licenses it was almost palatable. In 2009 it is censorship, plain and simple. The govt controlling what can be said in any media form should be a scary thought regardless of your political leanings. For some reason Rush Limbaugh drives the leftys crazy but denying him his right to speak his mind is disgraceful. The govt is already seeping into places it should not be and the Fairness Doctrine is a nothing more than govt control of a medium it should not be near.

I have a hard time believing that the Democrats who hold majorities in the house, senate and the Presidency are having a hard time having their views represented. It is censorship better served for Iran or Venzuela. The funny thing is that the left already has a vast majority of its "views" being promulgated in the newspaper and television forms of media. If they get much more "fairness" there wont be any sides of an issue.

Churches aren't public places. Airwaves are Gov't owned, and people buy a license to use that frequency. They don't own that frequency. So, this is an effort to keep people with only one point of view from buying up all the licenses for the frequencies. From what you're saying, if you're in a Conservative State (where Progressive radio is not commercially viable,) then only Conservative view points should be heard there. No alternative opinions heard there, because not enough people there are progressive.

I know you live in California but do you really think that the current state of news information in this country is one sided or close to Nazi Germany?

isn't censorship the complete removal of information? how is a liberal airing somehow censorship?

in no way am i advocating removing any shows at all. but how can someone call trying to get the 'other side' on the air censorship? it seems it's the exact opposite.

i always thought that the market would dictate what would or could be aired, and it certainly seems that liberal radio doesn't fly. but if the issue comes down to broadcast licensing being out of reach to one side, then wouldn't that be an issue?

i guess all i'm really arguing is that it's incorrect to call having both sides on the air as being censorship.

That is stupidity. First of all the amount of people who get the majority of information from the radio is almost non-existant. Secondly who in the govt gets to choose what gets to be broadcast? The minister of information? Only a damn fool or a communist thinks that govt control of the content of ANY broadcasts is a good thing. Even the goddamn socialists that seem to be taking over the country would oppose that unless they were just blatantly partisan.

No Im saying go buy a license , speak your point of view 24/7 , say what you have to say.

I dont see anyone being denied the right to express their point of view , it cant be helped if no one wants to tune into a certain point of view. Supply and demand yeah?

No, what's scary is only one point of view being around. That's never good, and if you wonder how all this absurd stuff happens in history, it starts with the fact that opposing views aren't present. It's no wonder that you're not getting the representation in the media that you'd like(it's not like you encourage it as a career choice.) This intolerance of opposing views is one of the reasons you got beat. The people in the middle were thrilled to see someone who wasn't afraid to listen to the views of even known bigots. For a radio station to have to dedicate a small portion of time to an opposing view shouldn't be a big deal. If you're so sure you're right about an issue, then shouldn't your position hold up alongside an opposite view?

The monitoring of the content of a broadcast medium is censorship. The fact that liberal radio doesnt seem to be as popular as conservative radio is too damn bad. You can not with a straight face say that the liberal view is not being heard. The fact that the liberal party is in charge of Washington and suddenly we need to reinstitute a flawed and outdated policy that would almost exclusively negatively effect conservative radio (which is the only media outlet that is remotely has a right leaning majority) reeks of political payback. This is the same thing that the Dems moaned about for the entire 8 years of Bush. Yet here they are taking freedoms away under the guise of responsibility and transparency? Where is the ACLU on this?

What would the reaction be if CNN and MSNBC were forced to give equal time to both liberal shows and conservative shows? Put Limbaugh opposite of Olberman?

exactly

What is this debate club???? Its not , there is not just one point of view around and that is very apparent considering the outcomeof the last election , somehow the people who help elect the new president got their information I dont know how , they must be very resourcefull people is all I can say lol. I have to listen to all kinds of points of view when I listen to A.M. 1070 here in l.a. and sometimes during the last election the subject matter and points of view were so biased that I had to change that damn station , bastards for making me change the channel so I could have something I wanted to hear.

I didnt get beat. The GOP did. As a American citizen i am deeply concerned that the ruling party has decided to get involved with content of the media. I would support starting wars with the entire European union over govt invlovement of the information flow. Obviously there are some things that need to be controlled such as national security and such but i have a hard time seeing how conservative radio is somehow altering the landscape enough to involve govt oversight of content other than obscenity rules.

This is not a left/right issue at the core. The residual effects are that politics are certainly involved but this is a freedom of speech/govt interference issue. Anyone who doesnt see it as such simply isn't looking hard enough.

That's majority rule. It's what Conservatives tend to gravitate towards. If they're wrong about something, then there is no way they can possibly correct themselves. That's why there would be segregation (still today) in the South. "If you don't like it, then leave." Most people wanted it. So, how would it have changed? Change had to be forced on them by the Federal Gov't, because they would of never changed on their own(opposing views weren't encouraged.) They couldn't correct it on their own. If you don't encourage opposite views, then how would you ever be able to recognize a flaw in the popular thinking? You wouldn't. You couldn't.

You just qualified for the damn fool because i know you aren't a communist.

I really don't understand this whole "vast majority of it's views being promulgated in the newspaper and television forms of media." As long as both points are out there together, then it shouldn't be such a concern to you. Your view(if best) should win out. I would worry more about the quality, than constantly being worried about the quantity.

They would never have changed if they weren't forced to.

What other descriptions do the Conservatives have for someone not agreeing with them tonite?

The vast majority of mainstream media leans left. It is denied by some but really it isn't that hard to see especially post election. What is a concern is the govt listening to ANY view and taking action to see that that view is countered or supressed. It simply is a slippery slope. The spitefulness and untruthful way that this is being packaged is simply politics at its worst.