All the TV stations should be required to donate a 2 hour slot to be filled by Obama and several

[glinda]

people that are well regarded, to make a visual presentation to the public about Health Care,

1) What the plan actually is
2) How it will affect each economic and age group
3) charts & easy to understand visuals
4) What the cost is
5) How this will affect the Country economically and physically as a whole now and in the future
5) Debunking, straight out, by naming the sources of the lies and propaganda and why they are doing it.

They should give it a title and name and ask people to support it.

I am sick of this BS just getting by, getting air time, etc.... This matter is way too important to fail.

[ananda]

1. Great idea!

Hear hear!

[vadawg]

2. unfortunately we would then have to give 2 hours to the pubs, mayby to nader as well

and the greens, not sure how it would work but you know the opposition would demand equal time and they would have to get it.

[glinda]

3. I believe that law went by the wayside awhile back. They could do their own 5 minute response

and it would go something like this.

"Socialism, take away your freedoms, kill you and your grandma,blah blah blah"

If it is truly laid out clearly, all the opposition would be doing is to bet on lack of trust. That is why you put some very very respected prominent people up there to talk about it to sell it.

[vadawg]

4. nah i think you would have to do 2 hours each or people would feel the government was

manipulating the media regardless of the message, no idea how it would play out but i got to say i dont want the government, any government being able to take over the media unless the country's life depends on it..

[glinda]

6. That is NOT a media takeover. Faux news is a Political Party takeover.

[billh58]

5. Once upon a time

we had a little thing called the "Fairness Doctrine" which mandated that all broadcasters had to present both sides of any controversial public issue (not to be confused with the "Equal Time" rule):

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

Snip//

In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.

Of course, Ronny Raygun was president in 1987, and he thought that the Fairness Doctrine gave an unfair advantage to Democrats, so he repealed it. That was the beginning of the neoconservative malaise of the USA, and brought us to the point where we are today.

See this for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[glinda]

7. thank you for posting that

[Dr_Willie_Feelgood]

28. Fairness doctorine vs. Equal Time

If either is reinstituted, does that mean for every 3 hours of Stephanie Miller, we get 3 hours of Laura Ingraham? For 3 hours of Thom Hartmann, 3 hours of Glenn Beck?

I know the idea is to counterpoint RW radio, but what about the opposite?

Free speech gives us the right to say what we want. It does NOT obligate others to listen to it.

[csziggy]

8. That might work if and when there is a plan

But there is not yet a plan. Obama doesn't have one, the House doesn't have one, the Senate does not have one, and we all know the Republicans sure as hell don't have one.

I sincerely hope that Obama's guys are going through the various bills that have made it out of committees in the House and the Senate and through the discussions held in the Senate Finance Committee - since they have no bill at all yet - and trying to come up with the best compromise they can. If I were them I would be doing that and when everybody gets back in Washington in September, take their version to the leaders in the House and Senate to try to short circuit the unending arguing that does not seem to be getting us anywhere.

HR 676 is a MUCH better bill than any of the other proposals, but most of the other Congress critters are not even going to look at it. So if we want anything this time around, we're going to have to accept a compromise of what is out there.

[billh58]

11. Isn't that

what the Town Halls are all about -- arriving at a concensus for a plan? The original Fairness Doctrine would have extended these Town Hall meetings to the major TV and radio networks, so that more people could be directly informed about the issues and the controversy, but mostly the Truth. Education is a GOOD thing.

As it is the Rebublicans, and the Obama-haters of ALL political persuasions, are not allowing any sort of reasoned debate on the pertinent issues of Health Care reform. These idiots want Obama and the Democrats to fail, and they are willing to screw their fellow citizens in order to accomplish their hate-filled agenda.

[csziggy]

15. The Town Halls are supposed to be so the Congress Critters can hear from their constituents

But between the Critters that are willing to help spread the lies and the misinformation. And like you said, the Obama-haters are blocking debate. They don't want to hear discussion and anything that Obama says will be derided and yelled down by them.

That is why Obama left the crafting of the Health Care bills to Congress. Now that they have put together the best they can, someone needs to go through all the choices that Congress has made and see where there is agreement and where the differences are. Then work on the differences. If it is left to Congress they will stall until it is dead.

This weekend with President Obama out there bringing rationality to the discussion and with the backlash that the Republicans are seeing because of the Town Hall disruptors, the Republican talking heads on TV seem to be changing over to "What is the rush to pass health care reform?" The President and our side need to switch to explaining that the increasing health care costs and the subsidies to the health care insurance are hurting our economy at a time when the economy needs all the help it can get.

Obama talked about that towards the end of the campaign and after the election but recently he has not been framing the health care (or health insurance) reform debate in those terms. Now that issues should be raised to fight this new argument.

What is worrisome are the right wing nuts who are willing to destroy the country to make sure that President Obama fails. Those are the people who scare me.

[billh58]

17. Thank goodness

for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and the rest of the honest journalists out there who are doing the job of spreading the truth, and rebutting the bullshit.

[glinda]

21. That is just fine BUT the majority of people cannot hear the proposal because of all the

crazies yelling and throwing in stupid comments. That is why "space", uninterrupted space must happen on major networks. The WH needs to flex it's muscles.

[csziggy]

26. When there is a proposal, maybe it would be time for a public forum

But we're not there yet. The various representatives need to hear what they can from the people. Then maybe they will be ready to listen to reason. I think a good number of them are fed up with the incivility - they are used to having people defer to them and not being used to being yelled at, so this is pissing them off.

[csziggy]

25. And thanks goodness for DU with all the people that dig up information

And share their sources with the rest of us!

I wouldn't be one tenth as informed as I am without this place.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. A two hour infomercial? Time to go mow the lawn, or go fishing, or do anything to get away

from the television. You're already convinced. I'm already convinced. Most Democrats are convinced. Who would be watching, other than people already onboard who get chills whenever President Obama speaks?

Not a good idea.

As someone said upthread, maybe there should be a concrete plan before scheduling an infomercial.

[glinda]

23. Not an infomercial. You can go mow the lawn if you wish during that time as there are

plenty of people who are not getting the message.

[bbinacan]

10. Required?

I don't think so there Hugo.

[billh58]

12. Why not?

They are using public airwaves to operate their businesses. From 1949 until 1987 no one had a problem with using public airwaves to educate US citizens about important public issues.

In 1987, however, Ronny Raygun and his merry band of neoconservatives promoted the same agenda that you seem to champion, and killed the Fairness Doctrine.

Sigh...

[bbinacan]

13. As long as the networks

are businesses, they should handle their own programming. Now if the administration wants to buy a time slot, then I say fine.

[billh58]

14. You miss the point

WE, the People, OWN the damned airways. Broadcasters are already required to provide "public service" announcements, civil defense advisories, and other public good services. The original Fairness Doctrine extended that civil responsibility to matters of great public interest, like War Bonds, proposed legislation, and Constitutional issues. It was an effective way of keeping John Q. Public informed and educated.

Why in the hell would ANYONE have a problem with that, unless they are dyed-in-the-wool, right-wing Republican? Why should I have to pay anyone in order to use MY airways for the public good? Cable companies would not be included (thankfully) because they don't use public airways.

We have met the enemy, and he is us...
-Pogo

[bbinacan]

20. Yes we own the airwaves

but we don't own the infrastructure of the broadcaster. If I need to explain the basic economics of this, then you are an idiot. And BTW, don't accuse me of being a right winger. It just shows the lack of substance in your "argument".

[billh58]

27. First of all

I am not an idiot, and I have been a general manager for a couple of multi-million dollar companies during the course of my career. I did not call you a "right-winger," but intimated that your thinking may have been influenced by them.

The government control, and use, of government-provided resources is a long-established relationship between broadcasters, utility companies, transportation, and other forms of commerce which depend upon public assets (FCC, PUC, ISCC, etc.). The former FCC Fairness Doctrine (not to be confused with the "Equal Time" rule) lasted for almost 40 years with no complaints of abuse from broadcasters, until the neoconservatives raised their ugly heads. If you can't see the comparisons, you may need to step back a few feet.

Peace -- I think...;-)

[Viper Mad]

22. Well, they would have to present those opposing views as well...

not sure if it would be be all that much of a benefit. shrug

[billh58]

29. The Fairness Doctrine

was nothing like the "Equal Time" rule. As the name implies, ALL sides of an issue are fairly presented under the doctrine:

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.

There was no loss of revenue as advertisers were snapping up these slots, nor was there an imposition of ideology on anyone. It was a win-win program for almost 40 years, until Ronny Raygun decided that he wanted the public to be dumber. Abolishing the doctrtine fit right in with the rest of his deregulation scheme for corporate fatcats, which ultimately led to the financial and moral breakdown we are experiencing today.

[Viper Mad]

31. Yes..."required contrasting viewpoints be presented" is pretty much the same as

what I said.
:shrug:
My comment didn't say anything about equal time.

[billh58]

32. Sorry

but I was attempting to point out that under the concept of the Fairness Doctrine, an editor, commentator, or other presenter would normally present ALL sides of an issue in a non-confrontational manner, and without taking a position. Unlike the Equal Time rule, the issue's primary political "antagonists" were normally not allowed on air, nor were the networks allowed to sensationalize the issue. IIRC, Walter Cronkite did a few of them.

As Jack Webb (Joe Friday) used to say, "The facts mam, just the facts..."

[glinda]

24. exactly

[ThomWV]

16. I don't think you can use the words "require" and "donate" in the same sentence that way

[billh58]

18. Sure you can...

I want three volunteers: you, you, and you...;-)

[ThomWV]

19. The very first time I got stuck with KP that is exactly how it happened

Nowdays there is no such thing as KP, I am told.

[billh58]

30. LOL! n/t