If I had only 1 choice - it would be the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[eagler]

The hate radio people are busy shouting how the FD would violate their freedom of speech. One thing is so noticable though. Their is not one single voice defending the FD on the airwaves. That's exactly why we need it. They say it will silence them. To be honest I don't think anyone should be silenced, but they should be held accoutable and competition over the free airwaves should be allowed.
A new updated FD ,not the old FD would allow competition so that both sides to issues could be heard because right now it's all very one sided across vast stretches of this country. If we could see a return of the Fairness Doctrine then we would be able to be heard all over which is what's not happening now. This will be so important in the next election.

[jobycom]

1. Good points. My one thing would be an FDR "Rebuild America" program.

New levees, improved bridges, high speed rail connecting major cities, rebuilt wetlands and forests, conversion to clean energy facilities everywhere it was possible (solar power in Arizona, wind power in Texas, etc). Put people to work, or privatize it and create new small businesses required to pay benefits and livable wages, with strict guidelines preventing money from going to multi-nationals. If we can spend 12 billion a month on a war we've already lost, rich folk have no excuses left for not building our own nation better.

And god dammit it the deepest Hell, New Orleans would get everything it needs.

That's my one.

[Bitwit1234]

4. I have posted that here and on all the other sites.

Why can't we have a WPA type program to rebuild America..Instead of sending all our tax money to Iraq it would be better spent here.

And if we have the programs, OUR citizens should be hired for the jobs.

My father and a very close uncle worked for the WPA to build homes in the Beltsville area of Maryland back in the 1930's to 40's. And that saved our familes, and gave them a trade that lasted all their life. The houses they built back then....they are still there today and people own and live in them.

But repairing our infrastructure is not a job that can be outsourced, so I am sure that bush wouldn't approve of it.

[ClassWarrior]

2. According to the excellent Center for American Progress...

Forget the Fairness Doctrine

...Okay, so why aren’t we calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine? As we state in the report, the Fairness Doctrine never by itself fostered coverage of important issues in a way that spoke to the diversity of interests in local communities across our country. In the late 1960’s, the supposed golden age of the Fairness Doctrine, the Kerner Commission reported the failure of mainstream media to report on minority communities. The same could be said at the time regarding the reporting of the views of women or poor people or young people protesting against the war in Vietnam.

Despite the distortions of the Nixon-era media haters, mainstream broadcast media in the late 1960s was middle-class, anti-communist, Protestant, male and white. If dittoheads like to think of this as a “liberal” bias, so be it, but the Fairness Doctrine didn’t do much to address it...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/lloyd_fairness.html

NGU.

[eagler]

5. that's why we need a NEW UPDATED FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

that gives at least a chance for important issues to be discussed instesd of the one sidedness that exists today. The examples you speak of are what was called "the chilling effect". It refers to the hesitancy of radio stations to broadcast controversial subjects because the FCC would come down on them for not giving opponents a chance to respond. The bottom line is that the airwaves belong to ALL the people and those airwaves have been hijacked by the Right Wing.

[txaslftist]

3. I prefer well-aimed high power .223 rounds.

[geek_sabre]

7. what on earth do you men by that? nt

[txaslftist]

8. Well, the idea was I had only one choice in how to deal with propaganda-

spouting fascist talking heads. The fairness doctrine is one way of managing them. Given an unlimited choice, my preference would be to manage them with sniper rounds.

Which is about as likely as getting the fairness doctrine back.

Neither one is gonna happen.

[Dave From Canada]

9. That type of talk is kinda scary. You can disagree with people without wanting to kill them with

sniper rounds.

[eagler]

10. What is it with Texans and guns?

[txaslftist]

11. That type of "scary" talk is what freed this country from the British.

If you don't think we face a similar threat now, you haven't been paying attention. Besides, the question was posed as "if you had only one choice".

But if you're in Canada, you guys never actually had to fight the British, so maybe your experience is different.

[Dave From Canada]

12. Yeah, fighting against an occupying army is different, at least to me. If people start killing each

other over speech and ideas, which is the way you're apparently thinking, seems to be way over the top. I'm sure people who shoot abortion doctors justify it the same way you do. And yes, we never had to fight the British, we had to fight you guys back in the day.

[eagler]

6. Iam willing to bet that if the RW hold on the radio waves isn't broken

then the dems will lose much in '08