Please, President Obama, after taking office, reinstate the Fairness Doctrine !

[steve2470]

I just subjected myself to a few minutes of Sean Hannity doing his best to be a brownshirt to Mr. Gibbs from your campaign, and I had to turn it OFF. We need the Fairness Doctrine so people like Hannity have real competition. He is a Fascist in a cheap suit, omfg.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Perhaps if we have a filibuster-proof congress, it will be doable.

[scheming daemons]

2. We don't need the fairness doctrine.

And in a free society, we shouldn't want one.


If our ideas are superior (and they ARE), then they will win out.


Silencing the opposition is anti-American. There are more than enough media outlets that we have access to... internet, satellite radio, newspapers, etc...


It's weird that you call Hannity a "fascist" (which he is, actually)... and then advocate a fascist policy to silence opposition.


Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk are preaching to the choir. It's a big echo chamber. I loathe what they have to say, but I believe in the intent of our constitutional framers.

All speech... even hateful, ignorant, and wrong speech... should be protected. If someone wants to pay these pricks to say what they want to say, then fine.

The better ideas will win out.

We're about to see it in 26 days.

[steve2470]

4. I agree with everything you said, except...

the part that I'm advocating fascism. I totally vehemently disagree with that part. If you're labeling it a fascist policy, then you're labeling the people who originally applied it to the public airwaves fascist also. I wish you the best of luck fighting Hannity et al and all of their rich right wing backers. It's NOT a level playing field, by far. But, you choose to think this fascist. That's fine, we agree to disagree. I won't have any sympathy for your angst when you're livid about Hannity and Limbaugh and their ilk. I'll simply think how easy it is to start up a cable news network and broadcast left of center remarks /sarcasm off.

[OneGrassRoot]

14. The corporations are controlling the airwaves....

they co-opted the Republican Party to spew talking points to keep the listeners focused on inane issues, making them hate the "welfare" queen so they don't notice the corporate welfare queens/kings. People now are seeing these corporate welfare queens, but the right-wing hate radio is trying desperately to get their focus back on all the people of color who are destroying this country...no fault of corporations which control the government...nope, nope....watch the shiny object named Sarah Palin to distract from truth and focus on misplaced hatred and fear.

The corporations won't allow the left to make any inroads; they pull advertising when investigative journalism becomes involved, as that would expose them.

Plus, it's really hard for the left to complete as the world isn't black or white, and it's hard to get sound bites and talking points when dealing with complex issues.

Very frustrating.

[Beregond2]

5. The fairness doctrine did not "silence the opposition."

It required that any federally licensed media outlet cover a wide range of opinions. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not sure I want to have to listen to people like Hannity on MSNBC.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

10. I tend to agree with you about many of your points

However, propaganda stations such as Fox, should not be allowed to call themselves a News network. Editorializing is just that, it is not News. It's one thing for the cable shows to do that with their 'news commentary' as it's labled as such. I know that what I'm listening to is just Joe Schmo's opinion and I may choose to listen to that or not, but I should not have to sift through anyone's OPINION to get straight facts and form my own.

The network news programs, IMO, have an obligation to present the WHOLE story, and present it without the editorializing. And when they covering something as important as an election, it seems to me they ought to have to cover all the candidates (yes, including the independents) without favoring one over the other. I don't want to take away ANYBODY'S right to free speech, but do want to insure a platform for all.

I don't know if the Fairness Doctrine is the way to do that, or if we need something else altogether :shrug: I do know that as it stands the MSM SUCKS in general, and for Fox in particular ... to be able to claim to be 'fair and balanced' when for eight years they have been Bush's biggest cheerleader is just criminal, but maybe that's a truth in advertising problem.

I'd like to see real journalism again, how do we get back to that?

[bluestateguy]

3. Can it be done by executive order?

Those pinheads in Congress would capitulate at the first shrieks of outrage from the RW Noise Machine.

[gravity]

6. I am for freedom of speech

I support Sean Hannity's right to spew crap. There is no need for to shut people down.

[thoughtcrime1984]

9. I support free speech, but not libel.

If someone were to use a public forum of any kind to call someone a terrorist, then they had better have proof of it, or they are wrongfully defaming said person. I really do think there needs to be consequences for wrongfully and willfully defaming character, no matter who that may be.

[Doremus]

7. I'm in. That and the media ownership rules. Bring 'em both back.

We can't have Democracy without them.

No, it is NOT all right for propaganda to spew unchallenged.

Propaganda MUST be stopped if we are to save our Democracy.



Propaganda is NOT free speech.

[Balbus]

8. Are you aware of the irony in your post?

Just wondering...

[Uzybone]

11. Bad idea

we are a free speech society. And there is no such thing as real "fairness". Everyone has their biases. With a fairness doctrine would we also have to listen to creationists?

[cali]

12. Please educate yourself before spouting off. It's clear you are clueless.

And I know it's unpopular here, but I'm against reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine in any form. It didn't work, and it won't work.

[woo me with science]

13. I hate when people who call themselves liberals say things like this. nt

[Orsino]

15. Petition Congress, not the president.

Well, okay, go ahead and poke President Obama while you're at it, but new law has to come from the House and Senate.

I hope that Obama will be busy reversing Executive Orders and replacing federal attorneys.