The Fairness Doctrine exposes lies, it is that simple.
If, let's say, FOX, tells bold-faces lies six hours a day, someone else gets six hours to set the record straight.

That is all it is.

Unfortunately the dem's do not practice what they preach.

What about the MSM? ABC,CBS and NBC are designed to promote the democratic party. When they can be fair and balanced then maybe we can look at TV.

The dems can't have it both ways...

Unfortunately the dem's do not practice what they preach.

What about the MSM? ABC,CBS and NBC are designed to promote the democratic party. When they can be fair and balanced then maybe we can look at TV.

The dems can't have it both ways...

Isn't it ironic how in this day and age of almost unlmited electronic news sources, the liberals cry how unfair it is. And yet back in the day they were completely content when there were just three major TV media news sources.

If this bill comes up I am going to DC. With alot of others. The 5 million man march.

What about all of the network television shows pushing the latest liberal cause... gay marriage, gun control, Rosie O'Donnell's replacement's latest conspiracy theories, etc.?

Will the networks be required to air shows expressing the opposing views?

AAR

"Liberals" here should be as angry about this as we are. The Internet could be next. This is a dangerous fascist move.

I did see one liberal here agree in the previous string about this. ONE.

Your position on this issue tells us a lot about you. You're amazed when we say that Democrats (and note, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't write "liberal") want to control the press. You think we're paranoid when we say the second amendment isn't about hunting. - So, are you OK with this or not?

Right now, under the capitalist system and within the law conservatives seem to have an edge on the radio. But you control the mainstream press with a 9 to 1 ratio. So? Should we change that by law also?

The DEMOCRATS a.k.a NAZI/SOCIALIST partisan hackwing gang of our congress folks, is wanting to imprison the Christians in America for speaking the truth!!!!!!!!

As I've said, DEMOCRATS are DANGEROUS, and if America does not wake up soon, then we will be seen WORLDWIDE for our weakness, and the home grown terrorist cells IN AMERICA, YES, IN AMERICA folks, will see this as a vantage point in which to wreak havoc in our beautiful free land!

PLEASE AMERICA, TAKE A STAND, AND STOP THIS NON-SENSE!!!!

Jeremiah

Lets look at who reported this story (on-line, I rarely watch them on TV)

FOX - Yes

ABC NEWS- No

CBS NEWS- No

CNN - No

MSNBC- No

NYT (The paper of record)- No, though they have a nice Murdoch hit piece.

NPR - Yes, though the story in NPR News blog is derisive of conservative fears.

Washington Post- No (so much for knowing whats going on inside the beltway)

AP - No, not even when the phrase "FEINSTEIN fairness doctrine" was searched for.

LA Times- No

UPI- No

BBC- No

U.S. News and World Report- No

Time- No

Newsweek- No

Google News- No

Yahoo- No

This is fascism. America is really at a crossroads.

I think Chris Wallace is right - let the market sort it out.

The only place it really seems lopsided is AM radio. If liberals want to develop some radio shows to compete with the sea of conservative content on AM radio, let them. They would have done it already if anybody who listens to AM wanted it.

There's plenty of both sides represented on TV and in print - some of it quite entertaining.

Kahn - Since when is an interview conducted by one network a story which all other networks are supposed to pick up? I don't see Fox news reporting on every interview done on Meet the Press or This Week.

I don't see Fox news reporting on every interview done on Meet the Press or This Week.

Why should they? Meet the Depressed, This is Weak, and Deface the Nation all pretty much report on the same biased b/s, along with Lame Edidton, hosted by Wolf Blitzed.

Liberal talk radio fails, because it's full of BDS hatred. They've been trotting out the "next Rush Limbaugh" for the past ten years or so--how many times have they failed? Airhead America had to steal money to survive, and Al Frankfurter is gone. I think the rest of the crew are volunteers; who would pay those twits?

Let the market, not the government, decide...

extra - This was a Fox interview following a story during the week saying Feinstein and Clinton were overheard discussing this very subject. AND, the subject at hand is a fascist move to stifle political speech.

Sorry, what constitutes a major story in your eyes?

And these news organizations HAVE carried stories about what people have said on Fox before. It's just that they are pretty damn selective about it.

I would take note at the way NPR covered the story. Its not in the news section at all, but rather in their "news blog". It starts out by saying "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!". So at least they acknowledge the significance of the move even if they immediately are derisive of Republican concerns about it.

Thanks for agreeing that the market should decide - you are now the second liberal poster here to say so. But you miss the point. The press, who should be the strongest advocate of the 1st Amendment, is silent on moves to limit it - so long as those being affected are conservative. THAT speaks more to their bias (and short-sightedness) than I ever could.

correction - The discussion was reportedly between Clinton and Boxer. Now with Feinstein joining in, we have a THIRD democrat Harpie saying that effective oppsition speech must be controlled.

This fairness doctrine is ridiculous. Let the market sort it out and for all intent and purpose it has. Radio is the domain of the conservative pure and simple, they do it well no doubt about it. What is intriguing about the whole Boxer/Clinton conversation overheard by Inhofe, is that in the span of hours crazy Jim's story changed from I heard this a few years ago to I heard this a few days ago. Which is it? It doesn't matter really this fairness doctrine is a loser for liberals and they should just live with the fact that thier audience doesn't listen to talk radio.

If the liberals get their Fairness Doctrine for radio, what's next? Books?

Wouldn't that be interesting?

Free country. Freedom of speech. But, if people don't want to hear what you want to say, tough.

B.E.L. - You have moved up a notch on the respecto-meter.

The Boxer-Clinton thing may be confused, but the Feinstein statements are clear as a bell.

It doesn't matter really this fairness doctrine is a loser for liberals and they should just live with the fact that thier audience doesn't listen to talk radio.

Not entirely true--they listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and Ingraham.

BEL, commas and semi-colons don't exist on your keyboard? Get your momma to show you where they are...

queefy, I need help with my punctuation?

BEL - since some of us understand your embedded insult - is it OK if I go to the gutter in replies to you? Just trying to define the rules.

Can I twist your handle to an inuendo about child molesting? I mean, its already canibalistic. Can I say stuff about your mother? Your kids? I mean - I DO understand that you are throwing a gross insult into your replies to keefer - so is it safe to assume that gross and base insults to you are OK?

Do your darndest Kahn.

Let me get this straight; Trent Lott is a Democrat?

queefy, I need help with my punctuation?

Punctuation is the least of your worries, girlfriend.

Kahn, I understand bel's imbedded insult too; she's not the first to use it, and it is far from original. She bothers me not with her words; I just wish she and her girlfriend, Dr. Rerun, would take more care with their writing. Alas, that's what we accept as educated thse days...

Let me land clearly on the side of a free and unfettered marketplace of ideas in the press, on the airways and over the internet. The "fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to regulate something that can never be "fairly" regulated.

I don't care that 90% of journalists are liberal. People can turn off media that they think is biased, and my sense is they do. As his opinions lose adherents, O'Reilly loses viewers and Olberman gains them. In the aggregate, their numbers are not terribly material. The vast majority of Americans don't watch either of them.

I do think there is pretty good balance in print media. You may criticize the major news magazines and some newspapers but those liberal journalists don't write stories or editorials for any of the papers in the major cities I've lived in (and that includes Phoenix, San Antonio, Spokane and San Diego). If candidates have an (R) after their names, they have always been endorsed by papers in those cities. Not a problem to me. If I disagree with what they print, I cancel the rag.

I don't feel there is any paucity of conservative opinion in society today. Conservatives have invested heavily in think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, and they are skilled at getting their message through to voters. Liberals are playing catch-up, and it seems to me that the internet is their favored medium. Time will tell.

In the meantime I enjoy the exchange of divergent views such as I read here. This blog would die if it was nothing more than a bunch of "attaboys" exchanged by Keefer, Navydad, Kahn, Neocon, etc. The passionate disagreement is what I find stimulating. I hope we remain free to continue to freely exchange our views in the manner we choose.