The Unfairness Doctrine

Like so many have already stated:

"The Fairness Doctrine isn't....."

Liberals think it's unfair that nobody likes to listen to them. Hence the fairness doctrine.

You miss the point: Liberals don't need RW pundits to tell them what and how to think. They can research on their own.

I just love the way you speak for all Conservatives and all Liberals simultaneously.........

Sam, why do liberals NEED to force their opinions on people who don't want to hear them? I certainly don't give a rats ass that you don't listen to RW radio because you research your own info by watching MSNBC LOL! My point is that Conservatives don't NEED liberals to listen to them. Liberals NEED conservatives to listen to them in order to stay economically viable in the market of news commentary.

I got news for them... just because they air it doesn't mean I'll listen. You could put Keith Obermeyer or Chris Matthews on 24/7... I'd just throw my TV off a tall building.

The Fairness Doctrine was sold to the public when there were very few options in radio or TV. That was the 70s - no internet, no cable news channels, no talk radio. Therefore, making those news shows that had any opinion in them be required to have the opposite side represented was somewhat logical on the surface. The fact that shows like 60 minutes and others that were mostly political opinion veiled as news didn't follow the Fairness Doctrine showed how ineffective it was even then.

Now with so many choices on radio, TV and the internet the Fairness Doctrine has lost any of the significance it supposedly had over 30 years ago.

It isn't really needed based upon the Pres election and the 23rd NY. RW maniacs foamed at Owen with all their media popguns and failed. A considerable portion of FOX's market share is Dem and votes that way. So the best efforts of RW political Stalinism falls flat.

Glad you feel that way, Sam. Of course, it would have been better if you had felt the same way prior to last years election, but we'll take it now.

On principal I don't have a problem with a well informed electorate via public media. The RW seems to think that a well informed electorate will inevitably mean conservative losses. If they thought a "fairness doctrine" would assist them they would quote the New, Old Testament and Magna Carta as proof. As posted the best efforts of the RW obscene smear machine does not work in the pinch. You guys gotta find a new gig.

After the red state beat downs in Virginia and New Jersey, I am impressed that you don't blame Fox news. As far as Owens in New York's 23rd, he ran to the right of the republican, promised to vote against a public option and taxes to pay for health care and got less votes than the conservative and republican combined. I wouldn't consider that an endorsement of your ideology but you do your own research so........Go see what media matters has to say and get back to me....

Well, that's an interesting twist to the event Jeff. IMO Dick Armey and his clone army offended the citizenry of the district by forcing on them a non-native critter and flooding the election with tea bagging solicitors. In all fairness if ACORN or the RW clone army were to flood your hometown or mine with the same crudity the natives would vote for the other guy in spite of them. Nobody likes carpetbaggers telling them how to vote. Scorzafava was selected by 11 Repub county chairs. Anyway you look at it a seat held since the 1800's by the GOP lost to the Dems means somebody's screwed the pooch. As for Virginia and NJ Corzine was a weak candidate with a Wall Street pedigree which did him NO good. Bloomberg is the same and barely squeaked by. In Virginia the Rep is a social conservative that ran as Mr. Moderate, I didn't REALLY mean all that stuff I wrote in College, candidate.
You are free to paint this as a stunning and overwhelming endorsement of Hooverism or anything else. But, IMO, the monied elite and extremist carpetbaggers were trashed, 2 new Dems were elected to the House and two moderate GOP to governors. Can't really call that a "mandate."

Scorzafava was "selected" by 11 chair members and you don't see a problem with that? And like I said, scorzafava and the conservatives combined got more of the vote so in my opinion it was better to let a democrat beggar sit in the seat for a term and have the GOP learn a hard lesson than to elect another RINO republican.

I am not calling this election cycle a mandate. I am calling it a window into the future. 2010 to be exact. Just a year ago democrats were patting themselves on the back for turning Virginia into a blue state. How that holding up? We will see alot more of this in 2010.

If it is a "window the future" then the GOP is in deep doo-doo. I don't see how you can reconcile the Dick Armey wing with who actually can get elected. Virginia has a 40 year history of flipping mid term. No news there. Scorza had some liberal positions and garnered votes with them viewed as a moderate. The point is extremism DID NOT win, yet the RWNs are vowing to continue. Very good news for the Dems as has been shown.

"""If it is a "window the future" then the GOP is in deep doo-doo."""

We will see. And by the way, if you do your own research why do you write verbatim what the white house talking points were regarding the election results? You sound more like a puppet than a free thinker Sam.

"""Anyway you look at it a seat held since the 1800's by the GOP lost to the Dems means somebody's screwed the pooch. """"

Another white house talking point of the many you have recited has turned out to be false. I saw an article that soundly refutes that and shows that the republicans lost that seat a few times. But you will go with what the white house tells you as opposed to doing some actual research.

Compliments will get you nowhere big boy. It is possible that independent research could coincide with White House talking points. That's the character of fact. That's of course is opposed to the "created reality" doctrine of RW politics. However I was not aware of the 23rd NY change. I heard its continious GOP hold from many sources. I shall investigate.

Frank Rich in the NYT comments that the Hoffman loss could spell bad news for the Dems. The GOP might have learned its lesson and now will have the kahonies to kill off the extremists and allow the moderates to regain momentum. If so the Dems will have to compete not against lunatics, (prefered) but against centrists. Bad news for the RW is that means more natural co-operation ideologically with our centrist Democratic President.

True enough Jeff on the 23rd, or almost. It's a bit confusing. Seems the area was redistricted many times. But since 1996 GOP won by 2 to 1 every election. And the recent tally combined of GOP/Conservative was 50.7% vs Owens with 49.2%. That's a remarkable and telling shift and very hard to spin as good news for the GOP OR the extremists.

Do the proponents of the Fairness Doctrine really think that regular folks are so stupid we won't recognize censorship if it's called something else, or are they that stupid?

No, it's called arrogance.