AL GORE AND THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

It looks like I agreed with OwlGore for about minute this week when he criticized Americans' obsession with celebrity gossip. Well he is back to his liberal bit-government self again. This time he is joining the ranks of Fairness Doctrine supporters.

On CBS' "Early Show" with Harry Smith, Al Gore said, "the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio. And that's why the equal time provision and the fairness doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan's term."

There you have it. OwlGore feels that the government should set the "public interest standards" for radio shows like this one. Well, maybe I am a low man on the totem poll, but liberals loathe the conservative influence in talk radio. They just can't stand the fact that people like Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, and even little old me can get up here and yap for hours and hours and they can't do a darned thing to limit what I talk about.

What is so different about what Hugo Chavez in doing in Venezuela? Weren't those pretty much the same words that Hugo used when he seized the nation's most popular television station, a station critical of his rule? Chavez said he was "democratizing" the public's airwaves? Gore excuses his desire to shut down talk radio by referring "defenders of democracy."

Al is losing his political touch here. Sure, there was no real secret that he, along with the rest of the left, wants to shut down talk radio. After all, every attempt at bringing a successful left-wing talk show to the airwaves has met with failure. So, the rule in government is if you can't beat 'em, shut 'em down. But just how stupid do you have to be to voice your threat to shut down talk radio just days after your leftist fellow traveler Hugh Chavez shut down an opposition television station in Venezuela? And then you use virtually the same language that Chavez used to justify your plans?

Poor Al Gore. Perhaps he was listening yesterday when I covered the news story about global warming on Neptune.


By: Boortz

www.boortz.com

For once we have a clear cut case of going aginst the constitution in this fairness doctrine.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 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.

No interpretation or fancy legal explanations needed. Al Gore and anyone else who is for this "fairness doctrine" wants to abridge the freedom of speech and the press.


Whatever happened to Air America anyway? is it still on the air?

The "equal time" provision was passed through Congress just after Lyndon Johnson left to become Vice President. The reason was to prevent any other member from doing what he did successfully for decades. He owned all the newspapers, radio, and television outlets in his district. He refused to allow any mention of candidates running against him. He sold them no ads, and the news refused to cover them. It made it easy to win campaigns, but didn't serve the public interest.

Whatever happened to Air America anyway? is it still on the air?

Doing just fine (http://www.airamerica.com/node/3406), thankyouverymuch. :)

Is it profitable? How many times has it been sold?

How long can it last? (I guess as long as rich liberals keep pouring money into it)


It's pretty bad when they have to pay for stations to put it on the air.


Doing just fine (http://www.airamerica.com/node/3406), thankyouverymuch. :)

so are they going to force Air America to have a conservative view on all its shows? I would have to think this is one area where Air America and right wing radio could agree on. Forcing them to alter thier shows on orders of the US government in the name of "fairness" sounds a bit Stalinist to me.
I have no love for "Error America" but I dont want them to have to do something against the constitution any more then I want Rush or Savage to.

Is it profitable? How many times has it been sold?

What do you care? It's still on the air. That means someone wants to listen.

How long can it last? (I guess as long as rich liberals keep pouring money into it)

What do you care? Do you think liberals shouldn't be able to spend their money to support something they believe in?

It's pretty bad when they have to pay for stations to put it on the air.

I'll assume you got this idea from Boortz or Limbaugh or some other right-wing nutcase.

:rolleyes:

so are they going to force Air America to have a conservative view on all its shows?

Who is "they?"

This is the current status of the Fairness Doctrine:

In 1987, the FCC stopped enforcing most applications of the fairness doctrine. It relied upon a controversial opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, written by Judge Bork [NOTE: Bork is a CONSERVATIVE]and then-Judge Scalia [NOTE: Scalia is a CONSERVATIVE], that characterized the doctrine as discretionary, rather than mandatory. The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959. In late 1991, the FCC extended its policy and ceased enforcing the doctrine as to ballot issues as well.

If you don't like the current situation, you can blame the righties. :rolleyes:

And one more thing...

Thus it was this past Monday, when the Federal Communications Commission — chaired by Michael Powell [NOTE: Powell is a REPUBLICAN], son of the secretary of state — voted by a three-to-two margin to loosen the few restraints that were still in place. Daily newspapers will now be able to buy television and radio stations in the same communities in which they publish, a heretofore illegal arrangement known as "cross-ownership." Conglomerates will be allowed to own television stations reaching 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent. A company will be allowed to own two — and in some larger cities three — TV stations in the same market. --The Phoenix (http://www.thebostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02931075.htm)

Once again, you righties are complaining about liberals when the fault lies in your own damned camp.

:rolleyes:

The fairness doctrine should really be called the sour grapes doctrine.

No one wants to listen to liberals so they are going to try to force the broadcast media to carry their programming.

Are liberals as interested in having the same sort of fairness doctrine with the main stream news media?

The right stays on the air because they are more controversal than the left. They ratings and attention for being rude, crude and down right nasty and guess what Americans love it!! That is why they love Simon Cowell.
for example Rush

1. Saying Micheal J. Fox is a fake and acting his disability to get attention
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

2. Rush says Duke rape victim a "ho".. good thing he did not add nappy to it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004

3. Rush says Obama should just renounce his race and become white
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/14/limbaugh-obama-white/

Ann Caulter

1. John Edward is a FOGGOT
http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/03/05/ann-coulter-remarks/

and much much more.

How many Liberal air shows get put on CNN or the New for comments like these. They do not get the rating because they are not as contraversal unless guess who.. You R "rosie O"
Now put Rosie O on the air and you will get high ratings because she stirs up controversy.
Very few liberals are as loud and as nasty as the Rights mouths and when they are you righties get together your "family first" groups and demand them to be boycotted...hushed and censored as to not hurt our little kids ears with the truth. Sure "Family First" does not go after Ann caulter for calling people a FOGGOT but Rosie O talk openly about homosexuals marrying and wow and behold Christians are calling for a boycott of the view.

Whatever.

No one ever said that Rush, Hannity, Boortz, exc are always correct.

Oh and the "Duke rape victom" is not a victom. She was not raped.

Please tell the truth when you try to prove a point.

The "Duke rape victom" might or might not be a ho, but one thing is for sure, she is a liar.




The right stays on the air because they are more controversal than the left. They ratings and attention for being rude, crude and down right nasty and guess what Americans love it!! That is why they love Simon Cowell.
for example Rush

1. Saying Micheal J. Fox is a fake and acting his disability to get attention
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

2. Rush says Duke rape victim a "ho".. good thing he did not add nappy to it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004

3. Rush says Obama should just renounce his race and become white
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/14/limbaugh-obama-white/

Ann Caulter

1. John Edward is a FOGGOT
http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/03/05/ann-coulter-remarks/

and much much more.

How many Liberal air shows get put on CNN or the New for comments like these. They do not get the rating because they are not as contraversal unless guess who.. You R "rosie O"
Now put Rosie O on the air and you will get high ratings because she stirs up controversy.
Very few liberals are as loud and as nasty as the Rights mouths and when they are you righties get together your "family first" groups and demand them to be boycotted...hushed and censored as to not hurt our little kids ears with the truth. Sure "Family First" does not go after Ann caulter for calling people a FOGGOT but Rosie O talk openly about homosexuals marrying and wow and behold Christians are calling for a boycott of the view.

Whatever.

You bring up some great points.

M. Savage says that when and if the Fairness Doctrine is law, he will sick his lawyers on the main stream media.

The fairness doctrine should really be called the sour grapes doctrine.

No one wants to listen to liberals so they are going to try to force the broadcast media to carry their programming.

Are liberals as interested in having the same sort of fairness doctrine with the main stream news media?

Yes in this case she was a liar but that is to be decided by the jury. That does not make her a ho and working as a stripper does not make you a ho. Hell even a woman who sleeps with 5 men is not a ho. I mean men can sleep around and have one night stand and they are called "STUDS" and boost thier mascilinity but woman have a one night fling or have many mates in a year and she is a ho.
The point is this man said before anyone learned she was a liar that she the rape victim was a ho. You don't say to anyone who got raped they are a ho. That is compeletly unacceptable.
If she is a liar than she is a liar but you do not know at the time of the accusation of rape that she is lying and lying doesn't make her a ho.
I find it funny that he calls a stripper a ho
when he got caught with Viagra on a plane with one pill missing and his wife was at home and he was coming from a vacation resort. HMMM??? Seems he likes escorts and other woman classified by himself as ho's.

as for these people being right all the time. It is thier jobs to stir up shit just like Don Imus. Because it get ratings by being nasty and saying controversal stuff.

Rarely dems accept pay to trash and thrash on other human beings at their humors expense.

ho: noun. 1.Refering to a woman who performs sexual acts in exchange for money. 2. A gold digger. Ref: gold digger. Example: "Anna Nicole Smith is a ho"*


Source: The Ebonics Dictionary

........just how stupid do you have to be to voice your threat to shut down talk radio ......?

Not as goddamned stupid as you'd have to be (I'm talking about Boortz here) to accuse someone of making a 'threat' that they never made nor gave the slightest indication of making.

1. The right stays on the air because they are more controversal than the left.
2. How many Liberal air shows get put on CNN or the New for comments like these.
3. Very few liberals are as loud and as nasty as the Rights mouths
1. The right wing talk radio shows became popular because it became a refuge, a voice in the wilderness, for conservatives. Left wing talk radio will never be as successful because the left has most major newspapers, the mainsteam media, Hollywood and most cable news networks (not the most successful one, the little crappy ones). The left doesn't cling to radio the way conservatives have to.

2. I have heard Randi Rhodes call the men who round up shopping carts at supermarkets "retarded" and I've heard Al Franken get equally as nasty. What does Rosie say about a wounded D-Day veteran?
"Bob Dole sucks", that's what.
The left gets just as nasty but it gets less attention and the audience is smaller.

3. Maybe it seems that way because they have such small audiences.