|CBS wimped on the MoveOn.org ads! Is Bush next?||Cory|
Jan 19, 2004 3:49 PM
|CBS has refused to accept Super Bowl ads supporting vegetarianism and bashing GWB, in part because "We don't think the debate ought to be controlled by people with deep pockets."
OK, take a stab: Does this mean it will refuse ads from George W. Bush, who has more than $100 million to spend?
|So they are donating airtime to all the candidates, right? nm||mdehner|
Jan 19, 2004 4:10 PM
|Used to be the law, until the GOP dissolved it.||Cory|
Jan 19, 2004 5:34 PM
|Under the Fairness Doctrine, established by the FCC in 1949 to ensure that broadcast stations' coverage was fair and balanced, they were obligated to give "reasonable opportunity" for discussions of topics of public interest. They had to provide time for all sides, and in a later ruling, were told to "actively seek out issues of importance to the community" and air programming that addressed them.
In practice, that often took the form of open debates or free air time to competing candidates, so the little guy had a chance to be heard and voters got all sides of the issues.
When Reagan took office in the '80s--at a time when the GOP was outspending the Dems by 11 or 12 to 1 on corporate contributions--Fairness was rescinded. Now it's strictly cash and carry.
|Who regulated the prospect that it was actually ...||Live Steam|
Jan 19, 2004 6:02 PM
|fair? Do we know and can we be assured that it was implemented in a fair way? Besides why should private enterprise be responsible for providing free airtime for this? There is no 'Fairness Doctrine' for print media. Why should one exist for TV and radio broadcasts?
TV programming, and TV journalism, if you can call it that, has never been fair in my opinion. It has always been a harsh critic of any Republican in office. Even after all these years, Nixon still is fodder for their dribble. Ted Kennedy, who took another persons life and is the standard barer for the Dumocratic party, was given a pass on Chapaquitic and the topic has never been broached again. When a Republican makes some error in judgement, he pays for life and the thereafter. When a Dumocrat does, he/she is given a pass and later extolled for not giving in to the "negative attacks" by the opposition party. Now there's a "Fairness Doctrine" for you!
Oh I forgot, you don't believe there's bias in journalism :O)
|No equal time for print because it's infinite. Freqs are limited||Cory|
Jan 19, 2004 6:35 PM
|The logic behind the requirement for the broadcast media to provide equal time was that they were (still are) considered a public trust, that the government actually owned the air waves and that the broadcast spectrum was limited, while anyone, at least theoretically, could publish opinions on paper.
Personally, as a print guy, I supported the requirement for us, and still do, but the media companies--sorry, I mean the Liberal Media Barons--don't want to be giving space away to fringe candidates.
It's been awhile since I took that class, so I've forgotten some details. In fact, though, you simply can't set up a radio station and broadcast--the FCC won't allow it. It licenses and limits the number of stations. And as ownership settles into fewer and fewer hands, the range of opinion becomes narrower and--no matter what your bull$h!t conservative paranoia tells you, more right-wing and pro-business.
|The "Fairness Doctrine" was anything but...||moneyman|
Jan 20, 2004 8:26 AM
|A recent issue of Imprimis from the notorious Hillsdale College featured an excerpt from an address by
Thomas G. West, a professor of politics at the University of Dallas, and a member of the board of directors and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He speech was called "The Liberal Assault on Freedom of Speech". According to his views, which I believe are credible, the Fairness Doctrine was a tool established by the Democrats to quiet their Republican opponents.
For a full reading of the text, whcih is too much to cut and paste here, see http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/default.htm.
I would think that the historic context presented in his argument would interest a journalist such as you. I would be interested to hear your take on West's thoughts.
Also, don't you think it's a slippery slope when trying to define fairness when it comes to expression of opinions? And perhaps a threat to the 1st Amendment?
|re: CBS wimped on the MoveOn.org ads! Is Bush next?||Spoiler|
Jan 19, 2004 8:53 PM
|As a small, zero-impact demonstration, I'm holding a personal boycott of the Superbowl and its advertisers.
CBS accepted the ad at first. Then, after being pressured/cohersed by conservative advertisers, they pulled it. F#$@ CBS. I hope moveon.org is able to place an ad on another station to reach alternative audiences.
|Boycott away!!! I'll be there to watch the Panthers kick butt!!||94Nole|
Jan 20, 2004 6:50 AM
|Are they the youngest team (with regard to their time in league) to make it to the SB? Who was the youngest to win?|
|Not sure who got there the soonest in their teams ...||Live Steam|
Jan 20, 2004 7:00 AM
|history, but I will be rooting for them too. I usuall go with the underdog :O) Heck I think their defense and conservative game plan gives them a great shot. Turnovers usually cost a team the Super Bowl.|| |