However, they are right, about one thing.
Hillary and Obama will cancel each other out.
The Democrats have to get a nationwide viable candidate.

I would vote for Al Gore or Bill Richardson.

But I would vote for McCain, even Giuliani, before Hillary or Obama.

There is a really simple solution to the media in the US. Have the FCC follow regulations where they take back the licensure from media outlets that have proven to go against the public good, show political, racialbias, etc.

In other words, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and all cable television, radio, telephone, etc. outlets would lose their rights to use the frequences and thus their rights to broadcast. Also, have criminal penalities for executives and companies that go against the public good so there is a consequense for breaking these regulations and laws. It should be painful if they do violate the law – like mandatory 20 – 50 year sentences without the possibility of parole.

Further, if they violate FCC policy, their company should have fines that total in the tens of millions not some rinky dinky thousands of dollars when the violate the public trust.

As for O’Reilly, Hannity, et al., right wing radio started in the early 80s. It actually lost money for quite some time (as did Fox News and the Washington Times) but was funded by conservatives with deep pockets who wanted a counterbalance to what they perceived as the liberal media. The Fairness Doctrine’s end had no effect on them, just as it had no effect on the rise of shock jock radio, like Howard Stern. The only thing the Fairness Doctrine says is that a radio show or TV show can’t have a predominance of one side of political viewpoint.

Every other argument you’re making is off topic and ill informed. For example, when you make the claim that the bill will ensure that “each show will have a “fair” balance” you prove your ignorance. The Fairness Doctrine does no such thing. It simply says that in the aggregate, a TV or radio station must have a balance. If it has a Rush Limbaugh, it must have someone on the other side. If it has 100 Republican guests a week, it must have some reasonable approximation of similar # of Democrats.

That’s it. It doesn’t affect any individual show, it doesn’t censor anything, it just says on balance a station must be balanced, which surely you’d agree with, since you presumably believe media should be “fair and balanced.”

Stop talking about this, you clearly have no idea what you’re spouting. Go read up on the Fairness Doctrine, instead of just taking the talking points you’re being given. Dumbass.

In practice, the way it would almost certainly work:
Local CBS Radio station has a lineup of O’Reilly, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and a bunch of music and non-partisan programming. Citizen X complains to FCC (or sues in court, if FCC is non-responsive). FCC then investigates and sees that this radio station is completely one-sided. It then seeks some sort of relief, either monetary or injunctive (latter more likely). Radio station then has option of either airing more liberals or eliminating conservatives. But no one person has to be kicked off the air.

Alternatively, if CNN only invites Democrats onto its programs, and no Republicans, and the aggregate has a demonstrably one-sided bias, CNN can either invite more Republicans or disinvite Dems.

But to claim that “If the fairness doctrine comes back in it’s new form it will essentially make stations keep anybody off the air that could come across as one-sided” is so idiotic it could only come from a Republican. It’s just not true, it never was true when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. And the only reason people like Rush are feeding you these baloney talking points is that they know, despite the bs, that the media leans quite demonstrably pro-Republican, and they don’t want anything challenging that bias.

Try familiarizing yourself with a topic sometime before making claims asserting you have some knowledge of it. Idiot.

Comment by Jake-o-bin

Your ignorance is cute. What this bill will do is, ensure that each show will have a “fair” balance. This will be the end of right wing only talk shows as they will not conform to the regulations on their shows. That is exactly what the left wants. Behind Soros, who has been doing the same thing in Europe, they want to silence dissent. They want to cover up any strong viewpoints from the other side.

You said “It will not keep anyone off the air”, but why is it that no right wing radio hosts existed before the fairness doctrine was dropped? Can you name one show that was similar to Hannity, Limbaugh or Savage before 1987?

Is thinkprogress.org advocating that people that are asked their opinion about President Bush’s policy and give a positive opinion should be fired?

Well, you seem to be OK with it (provided the opinion is a negative one). Why is a positive opinion OK, but not a negative one?

how the hell is it the same to give your opinion on a subject when asked and to make a commercial for or against something?

You’re right…it’s substantially different. In the first instance, CBS is offering itself as a platform to catapulting pro-Chimpy propaganda, free of charge. In the second instance, a group of concerned citizens purchased airtime to express their views.

The message is clear. You can express all the opinions about Chimpy you like, and if they’re positive, you’ll be handed a forum in which to do so…but if your opinions are negative, you’ll be punished, even though you paid for the time yourself.

There’s a big difference, VTH…and you and your ilk are on the wrong side of it.

how the hell is it the same to give your opinion on a subject when asked and to make a commercial for or against something?

thinkprogress.org and its readers can’t be this ridiculously stupid, can they?

Six weeks before the 2004 Presidential election Viacom’s CEO Sumner Redstone (of CBS TV) endorsed Bush on behalf of Viacom…

“From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on.”

That is not what the Fairness Doctrine says. It simply says there needs to be balance in programming. You can’t have 1000 Republican guests and 1 Democrat. You can’t have 50 shows that are demonstrably pro-Democrat and 1 that is demonstrably pro-Republican. Any radio station that is not run by idiots could figure this out. To claim that this would in any way stifle free speech is empirically not true.

If what you were saying had any grain of truth to it, you could sue to block the Fairness Doctrine, since any law that has the purpose or effect of stifling free speech (e.g., someone’s opinion, as you dubiously and idiotically claim) is a clear violation of Amendment I.

Try not being a dumbass. It might help if you stopped listening to Rush. (Note that I am not demanding you stop listening, so I am not actually trying to stifle anyone’s free speech, I am instead expressing my own opinion that your mental retardation and complete ignorance are likely caused, in part, by the media you choose to receive).