Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So I log onto Daily Kos

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
windy252 Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:56 PM
Original message
So I log onto Daily Kos
and the first thing I see is "Dems indicted" from a headline printed by CNN. They're not even trying to hide the bias anymore. And how did Chris Matthews get to decide Hillary Clinton was the 2008 Democratic nominee? What happened to the primary? If the Dems ever get a majority again they have got to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine! :grr: Can someone tell me why some of the Dems scrapped the Fairness Doctrine in I think it was the 80's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. They were taken out to dinner by telecom lobbyists. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Franklin Cover-up maybe? n/t
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 05:23 PM by IanDB1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Frankling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 05:26 PM by IanDB1
The Franklin Coverup Scandal
The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse



More:
http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm



Also:

Franklin Coverup Scandal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Franklin Coverup Scandal was the subject of Conspiracy of Silence, a 1994 Discovery Channel documentary that never aired, allegedly due to pressure from unknown members of Congress. Copies of the film have circulated around the internet. The documentary, produced by Britain's Yorkshire TV, was scheduled to have aired on May 3, 1994 - and appeared in TV Guide as such - but disappeared. <1> <2>


This complicated conspiracy theory began on June 29, 1989, when the front page of the Washington Times bore the headline "Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush". The article, by Washington Times journalists Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald, broke the story that key officials of the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations were connected to an elaborate Washington, D.C male prostitution ring, and reported that two of these prostitutes even entered the White House late at night. The investigation also included, among other things, "abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion". <3>

Key persons named in the investigation were Craig J. Spence, a Washington lobbyist, and Lawrence "Larry" King, then manager of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Nebraska. According to the December 15, 1989 New York Times, Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers came forward with reports of "boys and girls, some of them from foster homes, who had been transported around the country by airplane to provide sexual favors, for which they were rewarded." <4>

King not to be confused with the talk show host was one of the Republican party's rising stars, performing the national anthem at the 1984 and 1988 Republican Conventions. According to testimony of children rescued from the child prostitution ring, they were forced to have sex not only with King and other officials, but then-Vice-President Bush. This story was met with considerable skepticism, especially after some of the kids recanted their story. Others maintain that they were harassed and frightened into changing their story. <5> <6>

Former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp wrote a book, The Franklin Coverup, and continues to research the subject today. Another investigator, Ted Gunderson, has been pursuing the case for years and has raised the idea that Jeff Gannon may be somehow connected to the Franklin scandal. Gannon is the pseudonym of James Guckert, a homosexual prostitute who caused a scandal in 2005 when it was learned he had gained access to the George W. Bush White House as part of the press corps. Gunderson proposes that Guckert is actually Johnny Gosch, a person who has been on the Missing Persons list since childhood. This view is not necessarily shared by the majority of researchers of the D.C. and Nebraska child prostitution rings, however, and has been called disinformation by some. <7>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Coverup_Scandal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Oh, THAT Franklin scandal. Thought maybe you meant the newer
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 05:35 PM by leveymg
one with the Mossad spies and WMD disinformation campaign.

Who knows, maybe foreign intel has the tapes on the old Franklin case and is still blackmailing the Bush family. Stranger things . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liveoaktx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to pay channels, only broadcasting
http://twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html

You have to understand this. Broadcasters are/were allowed to use the airwaves for FREE and in exchange had to do certain things mandated by the FCC. Cable/Sat doesn't fall into that category.
<snip>
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).

The Court's decision led to the FCC reevaluation and discontinuance of the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

</snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Actually, it was Reagan and Poppy Bush who sounded death knell
-- who sounded the death knell for the Fairness Doctrine --

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/...

And I completely agree it should be re-instituted, but then along with the rank FAUX News, I wonder if AAR would be able to stay untouched as it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. The Fairness Doctrine is a terrible idea in todays media
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 06:30 PM by Poppyseedman
From our perspective at the moment, it a tough row to hoe, since the right wing pretty much owns the radio airwaves, but the only thing the Fairness Doctrine will do today is put the final coffin nail in broadcast news.

Instead of balancing the news by regulation, it muzzles the news. People will complaint and send letters and the managers will respond by simply not reporting "controversial" news. In many cases bias or "fairness" in the eye of the beholder.

The genie is out of the bag with availability of pay for radio, cable news, and internet media, we need to come to the airwaves with idea's that people are willing to pay to listen to and not limit free speech.

If we do that, we will be the first to be limited more than we already are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 17th 2014, 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC