The Inauguration of Barack Obama

[Shirubaa]

While we're on the topic of shutting people up, what do you guys think of the Fairness Doctrine? I seriously want to know, and thanks Keith for not being a dick like most people on forums about politics, I genuinely appreciate it.

 

[sandman54301]

I remember, a couple of years ago, there was an awards show, and Sarah Silverman did a couple of minutes of stand up. the producers of the show were shocked at how dirty her routine was. And I asked myself: what did they expect?

This is what I ask to people who are surprised Obama is being pre-judged. O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, all these people are acting according to how they have always operated. I know I'm not gonna hear liberalism coming from Rush. I know he is right wing. Just like I know the mainstream media won't report on anything bad Obama does because, after 6-8 months, they STILL aren't done fellating him. What passes for 'news' on CBS and NBC in the past 6 months isn't news, it's a giant, sloppy blowjob for Obama.

Obama could nuke another country and the news would praise him for it.

So really, when conservatives start whining and complaining about him, like all of you have been complaining about Bush for the last 8 years, you really shouldn't be surprised. Just like Bush could do no right, Obama can do no wrong.

Not that I agree with that assessment, personally I think Obama is doing ok, I totally disagree about Gitmo, but that's another discussion altogether.

 

[The 2nd Evil]

This Is Awesome.

 

[Bad Wolf]

This Is Awesome.

lol and awesome.:castlerock:

 

[StriderXXX]

LMAO......

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg[/ame]

 

[StriderXXX]

lol...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skIlZflDs9Y&feature=related[/ame]

 

[OverdrivePrime]

This Is Awesome.

That takes it to the limit! :buttrock:


Anyway, Fairness Doctrine was addressed above.

According to Steve Rendall of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting),

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

Since the dawn of the 24 hour news cycle (and before to a lesser degree) the original intention and spirit of the fairness doctrine has been abused and deformed to a degree that would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

News groups airing a segment which their top brass might consider even remotely controversial scramble around to find someone, anyone to present an opposing viewpoint, no matter how little credibility or authority the person has, or how inappropriate the connection might be.

For example, if a news program airs a segment about single fathers, and one of the fathers they interview happens to be gay, more often than not, you'll see some "expert" (usually just some damn guy from a committee or lobby group) saying that not only do children need two parents, but they need a male and female parent and that gay parents are going to destroy the fabric of society. Way to take an informative interest piece and turn it into a partisan political argument. And this happens all the fucking time, all in the name of the fairness doctrine.

If they presented arguments with equal weight and support, presented by people of equal credibility, I'd really have no problem with Fairness doctrine. Unfortunately this has become a severe rarity. Any interview with a celebrated scientist talking about evolution is countered by some guy from an ultra-right Christian council who doesn't even address the science but says that scientists are trying to undermine god's message. Any interview about science and ideas behind clean coal is countered with some embarrassingly transparent woodstock remnant who can't string two sentences together without using the words conspiracy and maaaaan.

And so, I think that while the original idea of Fairness Doctrine has some merit, the manner in which it exists currently does more harm than good to our society.

 

[Shirubaa]

Well, here's my argument against it...isn't that a violation of freedom of the press? For the government to step in and say "Okay! If you guys start talking about this, then make sure you present the other side!" Doesn't matter if it's "fair" or not, it's unconstitutional.

 

[OverdrivePrime]

No, I think you're misunderstanding what freedom of the press is - as well as freedom of speech. In your example of taking various people off the air - that's not censorship or a freedom of speech issue. Generally it's economics. Corporate media acts in its own economic self-interest. Always. If Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbauch cease to draw advertising revenue, they will be pulled from the air. That isn't censorship or squelching freedom of the press, it's business.

 

[Keith Justice]

Obama could nuke another country and the news would praise him for it.

For the record, noooooooooooooooooo we wouldn't. As far as I know, Obama is held to the same standards as Bush. If Obama starts fucking up, then there's not a single person I know that would give him a pass.

I don't want "my guy", I want the best guy to do the best job.