No need for the fairness doctrine.

Posted By: postman
Posted on: Jun. 21, 2007 at 8:34 PM

18 Comments

2.5 / 5

Based on 2 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

Why are so called progressives, liberals or whatever democrats are calling themselves so convinced that they don't get a fair shake in the media?

If their shows are so compelling why do they need constant bailouts from deep pocketed liberal hacks like George Soros?

A flip through network news, MSNBC, and CNN show an obvious slant to the left.

Most major newspapers run constant blame Bush articles throughout there "fish wraps"Is it any wonder their circulations are dropping?

So blame it on conservative talk radio.

The so called advocates of free speech want to silent that which they can't compete with. How progressive of them.

As usual follow the money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455#Fulginiti

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both partiesMSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties

Click here to view more articles by postman

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 Next »

Phaedrus

Jun. 21, 2007 at 09:43:32 PM

View Profile

If Faux News and KKKonservative news is so popular, then explain why Faux News Channel lost money for it's first 5 years? ANd why on Earth would Rupert Murdoch underwrite that slanted BS if it was losing money?

And CNN's Wolfie Blitzer is a liberal? Or Jeff Greenfield? Heck they bith purr like a kitten whenever Dick Cheney scratches their bellies.

MSNBC, that dork with the bow tie, and Joe Scarborough are lefties now? WOW!

As for which journalist gave how much to whom, did the study look for the owners of media outlets, to see who they gave to? How much did Murdoch, Rev. Moon and Mellon Sciafe give to Democratic candidates?

Report Abuse

William

Jun. 22, 2007 at 10:22:30 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

That's because they get their money from large corp and they don't need the few progressive journelists. Big money comdemns the average joe's money everytime.

Report Abuse

Lib and Con

Jun. 22, 2007 at 01:12:14 PM

View Profile

On a light note, whatever happened to Big Ed of Voice of America. It seems he would engage anyone in conversation. whereas your big shot talk show hosts like Rush, Sean, and some LIBS almost always have their calls screened to where agreeable callers get in and those who argue against them don't last long.

What does that have to do with money and ratings? Everyone knows that the money flows where the talk goes to put on a show so no one says no to those who have the money in tow. In other words what the sponsors want their audience to hear.

Losing money? USA Today lost money for a long time. Losing money is part of a lot of businesses while building up corporate sponsors and a receptive audience. Higher ratings. Higher adverizing costs. More money for the station. Round and round we go. Until clientele is established sometimes the station loses money cause they can't demand premium fees for advertizing.

I hate a station where they go: Caller:Randi, it's so good to talk with you. I agree with everything you say". Randi" And you know what? I agree with everything I say too" Caller: "Those fricken cons are destroying this Country". Randi: "Yes, I agree with you". GEEZ!

Report Abuse

Free Thinker

Jun. 22, 2007 at 03:24:58 PM

View Profile

It is interesting that this conversation about the Fairness Doctrine has come up on Voice. I have heard a lot of people complain about it lately, and yes, most have been liberals. I know that since deregulation took place, stations now have a place that common voices can join together and ultimately build up a following. Here in the Valley, KFYI has become a dominant station since they have like minded programming.

The problem with having a number of different political points of view on one station is that it can not hold an audience like a station that has consistent programming. You would never hear a Rock song on a Country station. If stations had to conform to the old rules prior to the fairness doctrine, they would really have a hard time making it in this day and age.

With that said, it is important that each and everyone of us have a brain and watch as many different sources and develop your own opinion. It is difficult when people follow just one set of marching orders. People should be people, not sheep. Use your mind and explore what is being said by all and make that intelligent decision.

Report Abuse

Pinb@ll Wiz@rd

Jun. 22, 2007 at 03:41:36 PM

View Profile

I completely agree with you Free Thinker.

Everyone needs to stop being so one sided and actually start thinking for themselves. How can you one sided liberals and one sided conservatives sit there and actually be talked into half of the BS that is spewed from whatever side you have taken a liking to?

I have always believed that the two party system is flawed and needs to be mixed up a bit because no matter who wins any given election, there is going to be some non-sense bills passed or vetoed because of political opposition based on whatever side you're on. Where are the politicians that think for themselves? Oh yeah - there are none. Apparently money and power are more moral than doing what you think is right (with the exception of greed).

Report Abuse

Average American

Jun. 22, 2007 at 04:34:42 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

This is a market idea just like smoking. the libs hate smoking and they hate anyone elses ideas being more marketable than theirs. Not better, righter (if that's a word) or more correct, just more marketable.

You stand the likes of Rush, O'Riley and others up to Rhoads and Hartman, you can understand the market better. The first two are showman, the last two are running around telling the nations we are all F#@*ed. Which one do you think people are going to want to listen too, especially when nobody can bring a single person forward who has been eavesdropped on, or been held without bail do to anything Patriot Act related or for that matter, where someone has lost anything material or any right due to this administrations actions.

It's hard to tell the world we are all F#@*ed when you open the door and world is continuing on for you just as it did yesterday.

Report Abuse

Pinb@ll Wiz@rd

Jun. 22, 2007 at 05:10:27 PM

View Profile

It's hard to tell the world we are all F#@*ed when you open the door and world is continuing on for you just as it did yesterday.

I'm not so sure Average. I think a majority of the World's population hates US citizens because of Bush's legacy. Sure, there were some nations that hated us yesterday but not as many as today.

Also, I don't really feel "F#@*ed" in the sense that terrorists will always be targeting US soil. However, I feel like I was "F#@*ed" over by the government in the sense that I have to be very alert of my surroundings and even paranoid when traveling internationally.

Report Abuse

indie616

Jun. 22, 2007 at 05:27:05 PM

View Profile

Just some interesting info for you AA:

Mon Dec 18, 2006

-- >

Conservative States Have More Smokers Than Liberal States

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006 the Average Rate of Smokers across the United States in 2003 was 22.1%. 19 out of 31 Conservative States had a higher than average rate of Smokers (61% of Conservative States) versus 6 out of 20 Liberal States that had a higher than average rate of Smokers (30% of Liberal States). The highest rate of Smokers in the country is found in Kentucky with 30.8%.

[link:www.conservative-truths.com]

And while we are at it look at this!

Mon Dec 25, 2006

-- >

The Number Of Households With Hunger Is Higher During Conservative Presidencies

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006 the years where a Republican President was in office show that the number of Households with Hunger is Higher than when a Democratic President was in office.

Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton:
In 2000 the number of Households with Hunger was 3,315,000.

Republican President George Walker Bush:
Began his Presidency in 2001 with the number of Households with Hunger increasing to 3,511,000.
In 2002 the number of Households with Hunger had further increased to 3,799,000.
In 2003 the number of Households with Hunger had further increased to 3,920,000.

Oh MY!!!!!

And I will danged...check this out;

Mon Dec 11, 2006

-- >

There Are Fewer Children With Mental Retardation Served By Selected School Programs During Conservative Presidencies

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006 the years where a Republican President was in office show that the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs is Lower than when a Democratic President was in office.

Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton:
In 1995 the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs was 570,500.
By 1998 the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs had increased to 603,300.
In 1999 the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs had further increased to 610,700.
Ended his Presidency in 2000 with the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs had further increased to 614,300.

Republican President George Walker Bush:
Began his Presidency in 2001 with the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs decreasing to 613,400.
In 2002 the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs had further decreased to 605,000.
In 2003 the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs had further decreased to 591,700.
In 2004 the number of Children and Youth with Mental Retardation Served by Selected School Programs had further decreased to 582,700.

Maybe the country is F#@*ed, but since the conservative mainstream media won't tell us this, we just think things are the same day to day.

Oh, and this info came from the US Census Bureau.

Report Abuse

	Cancelled Account Jun. 22, 2007 at 08:56:34 PM
This user has cancelled their account with Voice of North America.

Lib and Con

Jun. 22, 2007 at 11:36:56 PM

View Profile

There are a lot of people out there(including me), who hate consistent programming. I only listen to Rush until I get to about 10 dittohead kiss asses and then I turn to Sean where I leave that after about 6 or 7 "Real American" calls. Then it's on to Tom Likeass where anything goes. Anyone who feels they have to listen to one program and it be "fair" is expecting too much out of the market forces that are always permeating radio stations and making them restructure and re-evaluate. I think it is the silliest thing in the world for someone to own a radio station and it even be suggested that he has to balance anything. As long as he has the advertisers and his station is being heard that's only fair. Isn't that the entrepreneurship and democracy at work we all tout everyday as the American way?

The fairness doctrine was in place for years and then repealed. However, having said the above, just believe that if a station has the talent and the gonads to accept controversial issues of all types and has the knowledge and capabilities to handle these callers it will balance out. If other stations don't have the radio personalities and talent to draw a regular crowd and accept calls of all types then that is their problem. It would seem to me that any open minded peron who wants to learn would be drawn to such a station and not to the same ho-hum repitition. That is the problem I have always seen with Voice of America when I listened to it and Rush and Sean and all the clones just like them. When are people going to learn that everyone has a viewpoint that is valid to them even though others think it is not worth much?

I would enjoy a radio station capable of dealing with controversial issues without having to be mandated to be fair, or balance anything with anything.

Report Abuse

1 2 Next »