NoodleyAppendage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:09 AM
Original message |
Now we know why the Repukes fought the idea of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. |
|
The Repuke talking heads and political right knew that the next 4 years rested on their ability to kill any idea of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. They succeeded, and now we are witness to why they were so vociferous in opposition. The lack of an equal coverage of counterpoint information on the health care bill has aided the Repukes in damaging any prospect of a bill and has crippled Obama.
Just imagine how differently this whole health care bill debate would be if equal time was provided to counter the corporate/mob misinformation?
REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Otherwise, the current media modus operandi (and an effective one at that) will continue to allow Repuke mob rule. The biggest mistake of the Obama Administration, IMHO.
J
|
Dennis Donovan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message |
1. So did progressives like myself... |
|
The Farness doctrine, as it used to be, was no panacea for right-wing dominance. The key to success in this is to REREGULATE media ownership - BUST the MEDIA TRUSTS!!!:thumbsup:
|
NoodleyAppendage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Well, that isn't going to happen. The Fairness Doctrine had a chance before re-regulation. |
|
I agree with you that re-regulation would be helpful, but I just don't see that happening given the monied interests involved. At least with the Fairness Doctrine you would have near instantaneous change in how coverage of issues is provided to the masses. Most people are idiots, we all know this. People do not, typically, digest information in a critical manner. Most just believe what they see and hear. The Fairness Doctrine would at least have allowed for some osmotic information uptake on both sides of an issue.
J
|
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:25 AM
Response to Original message |
|
There was no serious debate in Congress for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
|
NoodleyAppendage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. It was killed before there even was a chance for a fight. If Obama wanted it, it could have been. |
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:29 AM
Response to Original message |
4. they keep saying it will stifle their voices |
|
(apparently, since there are plenty of RW talkers out there who would be "forced" out of a job if it were re-instated)
but the "conservative message" is so under-represented in the media ...
boggles the mind ...
|
dmosh42
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. There are plenty of 'corporate Dems' who don't want 'fairness'... |
|
So, between them, and the whole Repuke party, which is 'completely owned', they would be happy without progressive ideas being discussed. The single-payer being a perfect example.
|
Doremus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Yeah, the blue dogs say it will stifle their voices, heh. |
|
Being identical to repukes' and all.
|
NoodleyAppendage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-06-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. It's such a sad missed opportunity. |
|
I think Murdock was worried about the prospect of re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine, hence his cozying up to Hillary so early and then his "talks" with Obama later on.
J
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 08:56 PM
Response to Original message |