The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of anti-Communist sentiment in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

I'm not surprised that, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Yet another dime-a-dozen liberal.

lol

I think it's great that I'm accused by the right of being too "left"... and accused by the left of being too "right"...

Ever think I may be neither?

Anyway, I don't listen to the radio much. I listen to NPR if I want politics on the road, but generally, I get my stuff from the internet, TV and newspaper.

And regardless of what *I* think, the majority of radio listeners want to hear idiots like Rush and Bennet. Franken tries to jump in and faceplants.

It's the market sorting itself out... and the particular consumers in this market don't like the left.

DEAL WITH IT.

Yup, I have called you both after you refused to concede a losing point.  What is your point again?

Its true Perrin,...not the SOB part...But all the administration had were lies, and that's what they gave congress ...LIES. So when Ron from Mars says "Congress was given everything the Bush Administration had." He is being accurate.
 I might say "Yet another dime-a-dozen Bushbot."  But really they are such a rare commodity these days they surely must be worth more than .83333 cents. Just due to their rarity they must be worth about a nickel. Yeah that's about right ...the same as an empty bottle.

I am sorry you feel this way, but in the interest of keeping the conversation more civil I have reported your insults.  They do not hurt me in any way, but they do lower the bar for a decent discussion and are against forum rules.  I do thank you again for providing the information relevant for this thread though.  I hope we will be able to keep this civilized in the future.

I have heard you equate right wing pundits like Rush and Bill to left wing pundits like Al and Kieth time and time again but you never give any evidence what so ever to show that they are, in fact, equal. Not even once. Why is that?

Al Franken and Kieth Olbermann are not hacks like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly are. I actually listen to or watch all 4 of these pundits and know for a fact that you are wrong.

When I listen to Rush or Bill I see and hear all kinds of BS all the time. And I am not talking about differences of opinion. I am talking about outright lies and misinformation. But when i watch or listen to Al and Kieth I do not find hardly any instances of anything even close to the garbage coming from the right. And not only have I never heard any examples from you I have also never seen anything from anyone on the right concerning Olbermann. Not ever, not even once. And every thing I have seen about Al were just a few minor errors in a couple of Al's books. Never anything concerning his radio show. The only thing I have ever seen is just the same kind of unsubstantiated slander that I see coming from you.

Now if you want to back up your opinions with some facts I would love to see what you got.

All I'm intrested in is keeping media FREE of government benchmarks or expectations.

Let the listeners decide. If people WANTED to hear Franken, he would still have a show, but he doesn't.

I really liked a show called "Crusade" but I understand that more people didn't, and rather than complain that there isn't enough representation of science fiction on TV, I sucked it up and moved on.

I don't see this as any different.


What *I* think is irelevent.

Radio listeners, as a general population, decided it sucked and not enough people listened to it. As a result, it failed.


I already gave my opposition to the idea.

If his show was so great and enjoyed by more people, it wouldn't have failed. But it did. Again, the personal qualms of the million and a half listeners must be less significant than people's appreciation for Rush, Bennet and the bitch who sits in for O'Reilly every once in a while.

I'm not saying I like those people but OBVIOUSLY somebody does...

Well... thank you. That is your first bit of reasoning concerning the fairness doctrine that wasn't just an attack on liberals.


Now you are just plain wrong. Franken didn't loose his show because of a lack of listeners as he had plenty to make his show profitable. Al quit his show so that he could run for Congress.


Again... you are wrong. Left wing radio has not failed. At least not Air America Radio because they are still in business.


Again...Al Franken's show did not fail. And while Al's listeners may have been significantly less than the big boys like Rush, his numbers were more than most right wing pundits.

Abraxas... your basing some of your opinions on incorrect information.