Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Eskimoman

Fairness doctrine?

51 posts in this topic

have heard some talk about this recently. Is it legit? What are the odds this could pass? Seems hard to enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who in MN decides what is fair airtime? A radio station is a business and the station should be able to decide what programming they want to air. The free market will determine if the station stays in business or fails.

[Note from admin: Warning to all. Please keep political parties or hints about political parties out of your posts per forum guidelines. This post has been edited and others removed. Feel free to discuss the bill on it's merits or lack thereof.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
A radio station is a business and the station should be able to decide what programming they want to air. The free market will determine if the station stays in business or fails.

That's why Air America failed, the segment of population that that station targeted doesn't need or want to listen to folks that tell them what to think. And that's not a shot at the other side, it's just the way it is. Liberal talk radio was doomed from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for dummies like me what is the fairness docturine? i do follow politics musta been sleepin on this one. blusheeksick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NOTE FROM ADMIN Please keep political parties or hints about political parties out of your posts per forum guidelines, THANK YOU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for dummies like me what is the fairness docturine? i do follow politics musta been sleepin on this one. blusheeksick

I'm in your boat.

From what I've found in researching is that it refers to FCC policies requiring holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and when they do they had to present both sides of the issue equitably and balanced.

Doesn't that seem like a violation of our first amendment rights, which clearly states that the government shall not abridge the freedom of the press?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is scary stuff.

Our first amendment reads:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law......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.

Imagine if we allow the government to dictate what and how the press will report what the end result could be.

I could hear the headlines now.

"We still have our freedom of speech so long as we give equitable voice to both sides of the issues."

"We still have our freedom to assemble so long as we allow opposing opinion into our assembly."

Like I've said before. This country is headed where it does not belong.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am going to respectfully disagree with you BobT- we do have freedom of speech. You and I can, essentially, speak our mind on any topic at anytime. IMO, where this differs is that broadcast radio is on public airwaves, excluding infomercials etc. So, if the good neighbor is going to allow a candidate 30 minutes of airtime to speak of their credentials they are then obligated to provide the opposing candidate the equal amount of time.

I think back to when Jesse was on KFAN, prior to PA & Dubay, once he announced his candidacy for Governor, he had to be taken off the airwaves so not to violate those rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if the good neighbor is going to allow a candidate 30 minutes of airtime to speak of their credentials they are then obligated to provide the opposing candidate the equal amount of time.

This from wikipedia.

"The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I just left the wiki site and noted the err of my ways.

I guess where I am confused is if something came up recently to start this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent senators have called for the policies to be reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, i now know and understand. doesnt trip my trigger.

If they can restrict what you listen to on the radio, what's to stop them from restricting what you read on the internet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated.

Yes, with one going as far as saying to should also be extended to the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I guess I am going to respectfully disagree with you BobT- we do have freedom of speech.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that we don't have freedom of speech "at this time."

Those were my predictions. When we allow our electorate to start to restrict the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution we open the door for who knows what.

Hence my aversion to gun control laws, special taxes on arms and ammunition, etc. These too are restricting our 2nd amendment constitutional rights, especially the part where it says the right "shall not be infringed." Don't believe me? Look up the meaning of the word infringed.

I'll be the first to say that the media is unfairly biased but I'll be even before first to say that the government has no business dictating what or how the media will report the news except in perhaps wartime military activity where they could endanger the lives of our citizens.

The fairness doctrine is a stepping stone to even more lost rights.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha Bob, I did re-read and misunderstand, so I am with you. I guess I am going to have to look around a bit and see more of what this is about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read that article too. I guess the way I see it is it is more pointless and wasted time to be discussed about in D.C., I think if I want to know either side's view on something I can click to one of two channels on TV and get that sides view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Charley- like I said, IMO there are plenty of ways for either side to get their points of view out to the public. Waste of time for DC to even waste their breaths on this. I read some of the most recent news stories about this, but I didn't see any statement of why, such as one side was able to do x,y and z and we weren't. Maybe I missed something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who decides on what sides get the nod in a fairness doctrine.

Paranoia is a good way to protect ones self from what is not there. Or is it there and I am manipulated into believing its not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who decides on what sides get the nod in a fairness doctrine.

Paranoia is a good way to protect ones self from what is not there. Or is it there and I am manipulated into believing its not there.

what kind of dog is that in your avatar and is it yours and does it hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: glenn57
ok, i now know and understand. doesnt trip my trigger.

If they can restrict what you listen to on the radio, what's to stop them from restricting what you read on the internet ?

There are already talks about this. Like I've said before, it's the beginning of socialism. The ones they are targeting do back them up and let folks know about what they are doing that they don't agree with. Anyone with any common sense can draw their own conclusions from what they say and what you read, but they want to take those they disagree with out of the equasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: croix flats
Who decides on what sides get the nod in a fairness doctrine.

Paranoia is a good way to protect ones self from what is not there. Or is it there and I am manipulated into believing its not there.

what kind of dog is that in your avatar and is it yours and does it hunt

A Large Munsterlander and its an awesome versatlie breed for hunting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree sandmannd. But with bail nation I think it might have started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • I am not one to post on here much but I am always "Lurking in the shadows". Anyway I have a question about a Grand Prix I bought a few years ago. When I first acquired the car it would up shift into the next gear as soon as you stepped on it fairly hard making for a rather uneventful and slow accelerating process. I figured this was normal as it was the only thing I found unusual. Then after awhile it begin to shake subtly when accelerating in first and second gear after second gear it would accelerate flawlessly. in the last few months it has begun to develop a fairly bad jerk when stopping and then going again. This ONLY happens after driving long distances. It never happens if I drive under 100 miles .Also it only happens about 1/3 of the time after driving these long distances. It will still accelerate slowly until about 3 mph and then it will jerk fairly hard when it does happen. Any Ideas what would cause this? The long distance thing is what confuses me.
    • What a load of dung question.  In your eyes no one could respond with a "rational" explanation. Johnson knew what it was going to take to get into the debates when he decided to run.  He failed up to this point so suck it up. Maybe you and Dave can get together and drown your tears together over a couple cold ones.
    • Do you have any rational explanation why a candidate who is on the ballot in all 50 states, and has a petition to be included in the debates with over 1 million signatures on it, should not be in the debates? https://www.johnsonweld.com/debate?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_term=GJ-09-23&utm_campaign=debate
    • This was Sunday morning after we set decoys. Maybe the duck dock is to comfortable......
    • Sweety, son and I are both-In. Will try and hold out for a buck but no Deer in the freezer so if it's Brown its Down!
    • I may have missed it when I dozed off in the middle of the "debate", but I don't believe there was any mention of Aleppo in the whole affair...    
    • Del drops the mic.   Nice dodge.   How would Del know what Trump and Clinton are thinking or are afraid of (if they are afraid of anything)?  
    • You don't have to but you will own everything Hillary does.
    • I think I'd rather it be dirty than apply solvents to it.   It is a four-wheeler, not a corvette.  They are made to be dirty  I might try armor all or something but i'd stick with something made for automotive purposes.
  • Our Sponsors