Bill Clinton Supports Return Of Fairness Doctrine

[Drixxx]

LOS ANGELES -- February 13, 2009: Former President Bill Clinton told Mario Solis Marich on Clear Channel's Talk KTLK/Los Angeles that he'd like to see the Fairness Doctrine return, "or we ought to have more balance on the other side."

Michael Calderone reports on Politico.com that Clinton said there is "a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton also conceded that Rush Limbaugh is "fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous" and said he didn't support the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine back in 1987.

Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are on record as supporting the return of the Fairness Doctrine, with Stabenow saying she thinks hearings on the topic of "accountability" are likely. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also said she'd like to see the doctrine back in place. No legislation to bring it back has been introduced, however.

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1163521&spid=24698



Dems will be bringin' back the good old days.

 

[Karen Kraft]

LOS ANGELES -- February 13, 2009: Former President Bill Clinton told Mario Solis Marich on Clear Channel's Talk KTLK/Los Angeles that he'd like to see the Fairness Doctrine return, "or we ought to have more balance on the other side."

Michael Calderone reports on Politico.com that Clinton said there is "a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton also conceded that Rush Limbaugh is "fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous" and said he didn't support the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine back in 1987.

Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are on record as supporting the return of the Fairness Doctrine, with Stabenow saying she thinks hearings on the topic of "accountability" are likely. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also said she'd like to see the doctrine back in place. No legislation to bring it back has been introduced, however.

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1163521&spid=24698



Dems will be bringin' back the good old days.

He was justifiably concerned about the right-wing and slanted discussion on National Public Radio.

 

[Drixxx]

The thing I like most about the Fairness Doctrine is that it is so fair.

 

[Karen Kraft]

The thing I like most about the Fairness Doctrine is that it is so fair.

Me too.

It's really keen.

After the right-wing talk guys (and gals) disappear onto satellite radio, and the remaining gushing and slobbering agree-radio programs can't find any sponsors, Nancy and Hairie will have to send them some money -- it's only fair.

 

[Bert Notorius]

SAT radio is hurtin'. Limbaugh is about to go on offense.

 

[Drixxx]

Me too.

It's really keen.

After the right-wing talk guys (and gals) disappear onto satellite radio, and the remaining gushing and slobbering agree-radio programs can't find any sponsors, Nancy and Hairie will have to send them some money -- it's only fair.

Send money for what? Why does radio need sponsors?

 

[miles]

Why is anyone surprised Liberals want to silence their critics?

Fucking frauds.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Why is anyone surprised Liberals want to silence their critics?

Fucking frauds.

Typical lie from you miles. You are nothing if not completely predictable.

If anything the Fairness Doctrine would ensure that more voices are heard, not less. There isn't a single provision that would remove any radio personality from the air. Not one. El Rushbo "Oxycontin" Limbaugh would still be spewing his typical half truths. Michael "Savage" Weiner would still be waving his gay bashing flag. The stations would just have to allow a rebuttal to their arguments, not even equal time is required if I remember correctly.

Why is it that the "right" wants to keep all voices of opposition quiet?

We saw it throughout the Bush administration, any dissenting person was labeled unpatriotic, a traitor, or worse.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wok]

Typical lie from you miles. You are nothing if not completely predictable.

If anything the Fairness Doctrine would ensure that more voices are heard, not less. There isn't a single provision that would remove any radio personality from the air. Not one. El Rushbo "Oxycontin" Limbaugh would still be spewing his typical half truths. Michael "Savage" Weiner would still be waving his gay bashing flag. The stations would just have to allow a rebuttal to their arguments, not even equal time is required if I remember correctly.

Why is it that the "right" wants to keep all voices of opposition quiet?

We saw it throughout the Bush administration, any dissenting person was labeled unpatriotic, a traitor, or worse.

Ah, but here is the rub. Can you see Limbaugh or Savage having the other side? I surely cannot. With that said, I am not for the Fairness Doctrine. After all, I think it should be up to whoever broadcasts to choose what they want to broadcast right, wrong, truth or half-truth.

 

[Wok]

All it does is assure that those stations who keep conservatives on the air will go out of business by requiring them to give away half of their time to liberal speakers nobody wants to listen to. It's bullshit and you know it UD. It will be declared unconstitutional.

Not just conservatives, but liberals and everything in between. I think it gives more choice for listeners, but maybe I am missing something.

 

[unregistered]

 

[miles]

Like I said, communists in a socialist white shirt, following Marx's dictum that peace is the absence of all opposition. Let them try it, it will be their undoing.

Is there anything more dangerous than a stupid populace?

 

[unregistered]

 

[miles]

Will this "fairness" apply to newspapers?

 

[Wok]

You are. Freedom of choice. Nobody wants to hear from liberals Wok or Air America would have been a success. What about our freedom to choose? Those stations will go out of business if they have to give away half of their time for nothing. Sponsors are not going to underwrite liberal bullshit they know nobody wants to hear.

Well, that is what I am saying. Should it be up to the listeners on what they want to listen to and let the ratings take care on who wins or loses? I do not care if it is conservative or liberal.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wok]

Will this "fairness" apply to newspapers?

I am not sure if it covered other media before it was abolished.

 

[miles]

Well, that is what I am saying. Should it be up to the listeners on what they want to listen to and let the ratings take care on who wins or loses? I do not care if it is conservative or liberal.

Gee...I thought liberals wanted Freedom of Choice.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Killswitch]

Why is anyone surprised Liberals want to silence their critics?

Fucking frauds.

Whats wrong with that in principle.

As a Democrat Im a little uneasy with any government involvment in this arena, but since im sure it would never pass anywhere, im more uneasy that anyone is publicly supporting it.

It shows weakness in my opinion, becuase I for one dont fear the rush limbos, glen becks et all of the world.


I do however think that when there is such a majority focus on one particular brand of thought....the moronic public can be fooled into believing whatever you want.

its like the pied piper....

But what if the pied piper is wrong....or being deceptive in his reasoning for wanting people to follow him.

At any rate. let the faux noises and rush's of the land say what they want.

I challenge the dems to do a better job of getting their message out to the folks.

I do think the gop is really trying to sabotage this administration though....especially after this judd gregg deal....

I think it's pretty shameful at this point.

 

[Wok]

Free people have free markets, let the markets decide, Americans are voting with every dollar they spend. It's just like the Democrats to want to thwart the will of the people, to govern against their will, so it's perfectly normal for them to abhor the free market and it's awesome judgment. No business model can afford to give away half of it's time for free. This is an attack on Conservative radio programming, an attack on the First Amendment pure and simple. It needs to be bayoneted in it's crib.

Well, I do not disagree with the Fairness Doctrine because of conservative programming. I am disagreeing with it because I think there should be a choice on what listeners want to listen to and programmers choosing what they want to broadcast. I think the ratings will see who wins or loses.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Drixxx]

Free people have free markets, let the markets decide, Americans are voting with every dollar they spend. It's just like the Democrats to want to thwart the will of the people, to govern against their will, so it's perfectly normal for them to abhor the free market and it's awesome judgment. No business model can afford to give away half of it's time for free. This is an attack on Conservative radio programming, an attack on the First Amendment pure and simple. It needs to be bayoneted in it's crib.

Uh Vetteman. The public airwaves is not a free market. It's already completely owned. By us. The public. Would you let Clear Channel set up a billboard in your front yard and let them do anything they want because of the free market? No. Why? Because you own it.

Fairness Doctrine means you Vetteman can go to your local radio station and get YOUR views heard in the community YOU pay taxes in on YOUR airwaves. This isn't a issue of left vs right it's working people vs corporations.

 

[Drixxx]

Will this "fairness" apply to newspapers?

Yes. In the same way vehicle registration applies to Hot Wheels.