You got it cause no one wants to listen to the liberal BS....and when you quesiton them they have no facts to back them comments up...thats why they dominate TV they can't be challenged as easy....Talk Radio is where its at....Savage and Boortz FTW!!!ptsmith24 said:
The Fairness Doctrine was passed in a time where there were 3 major networks for news and the notion was that equal time was necessary to protect against the possibility of one or more networks being controlled by few or one individual. Now we have the Internet, foreign news services, AP and other news feeds, a zillion channels on the TV, print media with Internet access and so on. One reason for "reactivating" the fairness doctrine is to shut up conservative hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz and a number of others. With the access most Americans have now to multiple sources of news, the issue of forced equal access is just not viable for some networks. They claim they cannot sell advertising on the other "half" and would lose money. I think, like most legislation, there are the intended and the UNintended consequences. What I observe, is the current political rhetoric is hot, heavy and early. Not every voter is pleased with the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court. Pick any one, none, or any combination. So my sense is that we should stay tuned, stay engaged, vote early and vote often. :shock:ptsmith24 said:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285933,00.html
So, what does everyone think about the talk of reactivating the "fairness" doctrine?
Malum Prohibitum said:Malum Prohibitum":32yz76xl][URL=http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA1OTkxY2FlNGVkMTU0Yzc3NjNjOTU3YmQyZWQ5NWQ=]The House passed by a strong margin[/URL] a ban on the FCC reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.[/quote][/quote:32yz76xl] Because this story is from 6/28 said:http://mikepence.house.gov/News/Documen ... ntID=68635[/URL]