Voting with our pocketbooks.

[packsaddle]

LisaBob wrote, "Whether that's an improvement is, of course, a matter open for debate. And it doesn't always mean they understand the reality behind Stewart's or Colbert's comedy either, but more often than you might expect."

 

Yeah, about the improvement, probably not, who knows? But I applaud a critical view as long as it's an attempt at honest criticism.

So I'm curious. What IS the reality behind Stewart's or Colbert's comedy? To me the reality is nothing more than comedy itself. Stewart is just poking fun and Colbert is simply lampooning O'Reilly. While I recognize the source of the humor, it certainly can't pass as in-depth thought or analysis - any more than Hannity or O'Reilly or the rest. Do you think the students see something else?

 

[SR540Beaver]

Pack,

 

Well heck yes!!! O'Reilly is "looking out" for us and Hannity says he has the hardest hitting, most comprehensive analysis available on the radio.

[OldGreyEagle]

If its recognized that Limbaugh, Hannity, etc are just for entertainment, is there any truth to the rumor that the "fairness" doctrine is im jeopardy or is that just more rhetoric to spew?

 

[packsaddle]

OGE, if you're thinking about that old idea that broadcasters should give equal time to opposing views or something like that, it was dead and gone years ago.

The noise I hear from talk shows these days is related to the fear that it will be returned to application. Seems a fairly low priority considering the real problems we have right now.

[Lisabob]

The fairness doctrine has not been enforced since at least the early 80s. In fact Reagan vetoed an attempt to bring it back in '87 or thereabouts. There was also the "equal time" rule which meant that if a station lets a candidate buy or use airtime, then they have to make a similar offer available to other candidates too. In reality neither of these worked well because the unintended consequence was that most stations simply ducked and dodged political broadcasts whenever possible so as to avoid having to make time available to all sides, resulting in poorer quality (and quantity) of coverage.

 

Suddenly I hear a lot about this from the right but this is just another one of those scare tactics - nobody is serious about bringing either of these rules back.

 

As for Colbert and Stewart, yes of course a lot of it really is just them playing for laughs. On the other hand, sometimes their interviews (particularly Stewart) get to the tough questions that "real" newscasters don't seem willing to ask. For a while, Stewart was one of the relatively few voices criticizing the Bush admin, particularly on the war and on civil liberties issues. I admit to having found some solace during and after the start of the Iraq war, when Stewart seemed to be one of few really trying to hold administration figures accountable for what they had said prior to the war vs. what they were saying once the occupation started to go poorly. So I do think there is sometimes some pretty useful substance there, as a matter of fact.

 

As for students, at least some of them watch something! It isn't PBS, but the Daily Show is better "news" coverage sometimes than what you get on, say, Nancy Grace over on CNN.

[moxieman]

Before you go about punishing a state for how they voted, maybe you need to take a closer look.

 

For example, Maine is not Red, nor is it Blue. It's Purple. We may have voted for Obama, BUT:

 

We are Bush Sr's summer home. Our two US Reps may be Democrat, but our two US Senators are Republican--one of whom faced reelection this year, Sue Collins (the other is Olympia Snowe). She won by a margin of more than 2 to 1 over her Democrat challenger, who had served the past 12 years as Maine's First District US Rep.

 

So, you wish to punish us 'cause Obama won, yet we have have sent two Republican Senators back to DC in the past two elections, both of whom are now serving their third term?

 

As some of my coworkers would say: (shrug) WHATEVER!!!

[BrentAllen]

Lisabob,

You might want to check your sources.

 

What the Democrats Are Saying About the 'Fairness Doctrine'

 

 

SPEAKER PELOSI AND MAJORITY LEADER HOYER:

 

Interview of Speaker Pelosi by John Gizzi published in Human Events on June 25, 2008:

 

Gizzi Do you personally support revival of the Fairness Doctrine?

 

Pelosi Yes.

 

Gizzi [paraphrasing] If Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor, would she permit a vote on it?

 

Pelosi Nothe interest in my caucus is the reverse, adding that New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.

 

 

Leader Hoyer says he is interested in ensuring the availability of fair and balanced information to the American public. He also stated that There is real concern about the monopoly of information and the skewering of information that the American public gets. First, is to the monopoly. Obviously, if one group, or a large group, controls information and only allows one perspective to be presented, thats not good for democracy. That is not good for the American public. That is, of course, what the Fairness Doctrine is directed at, and it can have great merit.

 

- July 31, 2008, CNS News

 

 

SEN. SCHUMER:

 

Interview of Sen. Schumer by Bill Hemmer of Fox News on November 4, 2008:

 

 

Hemmer The Fairness Doctrine are you a supporter of telling radio stations in America what content they should have on the radio station?

 

Schumer Well, I think we should all try to be fair and balanced don't you?

 

Hemmer Look this is commercial enterprise not run by the government. It is not public money, and I do believe in fair and balanced.

 

Schumer Yeah, good well you know there are the radio air, it's not that this is like printing a broadside. You would never say anyone who wanted to hire a printing press or go on a computer has to have any view. Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not, particularly on television and radio.

 

Hemmer But this is private industry but many fear the [legislation] from the Hill they strongly disagree with that.

 

Schumer The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can't say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise, but you're allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent.

 

 

 

SEN. BINGAMAN:

 

Interview of Sen. Bingaman by Jim Vallanucci on KKOB-AM on October 22, 2008:

 

 

Vallanucci Do you think there will be a push to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?

 

Bingaman I dont know, I certainly hope so. My own view is

 

Vallanucci Do you support it?

 

Bingaman I do. I think

 

Vallanucci I mean you would want this radio station to have to change?

 

Bingaman I would. I would want this station and all stations to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All Im saying is for many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Does that mean Air America stations would have to broadcast Limbaugh, Hannity or Savage?

[Lisabob]

LOL, Rush on Air America, now that's funny.

 

Brent, there's a big difference between house members saying they support something in the abstract, and it coming to a vote and passing in reality. If Pelosi, Schumer,et al, manages to actually bring back the Fairness Doctrine and pass it through the House, I'll eat my sock. (Hmm, maybe not...how 'bout, I'll send you some nice MI maple syrup?) Til then, I don't think anybody needs to worry about it.

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Air America would only have to carry those shows if they receive complaints from the public. In general, liberal talk shows have much smaller audiences than conservative shows. So the radio stations under the fairness doctrine dropped all talk shows to avoid the problems - both responding to complaints and being forced to carry less profitable shows to meet the doctrine. The result of the fairness doctrine is to squelch dissenting voices. It does not serve the public interest which should be to openly examine as many points of view as possible. The best way to marginalize subversive organizations is to freely allow the nonsense to be heard. People will reject those ideas. If the ideas are seen to be 'taboo', people find it more attractive.

 

The democrats only wish to squelch dissenting speech which is antithetical to the constitution and our ideas. This is dangerous to our freedom.

[packsaddle]

Me, I'd take the syrup. Mmmmm. But I tend to agree. If they did go for the 'fairness doctrine' it would be a waste of time that we can't afford. Still, I suppose it's possible.

What I don't get is why THIS issue is so important compared to the real problems that we have to address. Can't the talk show guys think of something better to rave and rant about?

[OldGreyEagle]

Pack, Pack, Pack, Silly Pack, You want them to rationally discuss issues and arrive at a consensus designed to move the Country forward rather then play to the fears and biases of their base?

 

Is any talk show designed primarily to educate or entertain? I do know the number one function of any program, TV or Radio is to make money and that is the number 1 priority

 

Then again, if there needs to be an Organization to oversee the protection of the First Amendment, I nominate the author of this comment to lead it, I beleive it to be very true:

 

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.'"(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

Although the economy, the war, health care, etc. are all important issues, the are all meaningless if we allow our fundamental rights to be eroded. Only Fox news on TV provides some semblance of balance in its' reporting but much of the coverage is fluff. Radio often provides the only dissenting view of the main stream media who consistently lean to the left. Silencing those voices is a serious attack on our freedom. Obama has just announced that lying should not be allowed in elections! That is the very speech that is protected!! Who is to decide what is a lie? Clearly, what I say about my opponent is true (if distorted) but my opponent is lying about me. Bush started an assault on our basic freedoms and Obama seems to want to continue the assault. If we lose our freedom, all the other issues are unimportant.

[packsaddle]

OGE, The ACLU already has that covered. But I agree as well...I've been asked to "move to Russia" for nothing more than questioning whether too much funding goes to sports rather than academics.

But here's they guy I'd like to see get more airtime:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/national/main4603110.shtml

 

Edited part:

vol_scouter, If the Bush team hadn't perpetrated a lie during the SC primary in 2000, there's a good chance that McCain would have gotten the nomination. Almost certainly elected. And that was clearly a lie. His daughter was an adoption. She was not the product of an extra-marital liason with a black woman. If you think that sort of thing is good, you have a problem.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

No, that was not good. The news media does a poor job of finding out what is going on. That is because they have a large component of entertainment and most are ideological. That said, who do you want to judge who is lying? You clearly supported Obama. Would you want someone from the religious right to be judging Obama ads? Many ads were distortions of the truth (as were many of McCain's) and could therefore be called a lie because it wasn't 100% true. No matter how well intentioned, no one can be fair and unbiased in the judging process. Dirty tricks have unfortunately been one of the hallmarks of American politics since the founding of the republic. The recent campaign was in my opinion one of the cleanest in recent history - a tribute to both Obama and McCain.

 

By the way, I agree with you that athletics in the colleges and universities is far out of control. I would like to see drastic cuts and I have season tickets for my university's major football program. In fact, I would propose that schools would be totally barred from all recruiting. All athletes would have to enroll in the school of their choice and tryout for the team. If a student does not academically advance to the next year of school, they cannot play that year. Get most of the games OFF of TV - the money is destroying the programs.