Prospect of a bigger Dem majority and a return of the Fairness Doctrine has Fundie panties in knots

[marmar]

:nopity:


from the news (insert joke here) service of the American Family Assn.:



'Fairness Doctrine' and a Democratic majority
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 8/29/2008 8:00:00 AM


With the curtains closed on the Democratic National Convention, the question arises once again whether the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" has a chance of being revived.

The old Fairness Doctrine, in effect, was a demand for equal time on controversial issues on radio and television. Print sources were not required to comply. Frank Wright of National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) believes times have changed, however -- and revival of what he refers to as the "un-Fairness Doctrine" could be problematic for Christian broadcasters.

"Today, if the Fairness Doctrine were to be re-enacted, almost every single Christian doctrine you can think of (would) be viewed by someone as a controversial viewpoint," Wright contends.

That would mean many sources could potentially demand equal time, he explains. "Think of any significant Christian doctrine, and there will be someone from Islam or Hinduism or Taoism or Buddhism or pick your 'ism' who will say, 'I don't agree with that. I find that to be controversial. I demand equal time,'" Wright adds.

The NRB spokesman does not believe the current Congress will revive the policy; but it could happen, he warns, if Democrats take the White House and win a solid majority in both houses of Congress.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=231658 (the link will get Rick-rolled because the AFA has some kind of DU cloaking mechanism on the OneNewsNow site. If that happens, go to the AFA's home page at www.afa.net and scroll down to OneNewsNow area, where you'll see the story.)

[barbtries]

1. i would love to see the return of the fairness doctrine

but i haven't heard it addressed as an issue?

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. There better be a new and improved Fairness doctrine, that''s for darned sure. We need

it desperately and this guy underscores why with his fear of opposing viewpoints actually being heard. :eyes:

[bluestateguy]

3. Satanists will want equal time on the "Focus on the Family" show!

Hilarious! :rofl:

[Stellabella]

4. Oh noes! Fairness!!!

We can't have FAIRNESS in this country!!!

What maroons.

[LeftyMom]

5. THe link actually worked for me. Apparently their redirector doesn't work with firefox.

:rofl:

[snot]

6. Reminder, we also need restoration of restrictions against media consolidation. nt

[Lochloosa]

10. Ditto

I hate that fucking word

[asthmaticeog]

7. Smokescreen. The fairness doctrine never applied to religious speech.

Only partisan political and campaign speech. Just the usual RightWing/Xtian tactic of firing their flock up by lying to them.

[Soup Bean]

8. That's what I was wondering.

A program like "Focus on the Family" would not be mandated to have a satanist counterpoint. I have seen no evidence of this ever being said, and I can't believe that the bounds of common sense would allow such a thing to happen. The blowback from such an act would not be worth the hilarity that would ensue from such a forced pairing. If the "Fairness Doctrine" were applied in this manner, I can't imagine that it would be very fair.

I do think that the public airwaves should provide alternative viewpoints. I'm sure they would do them at 3 in the morning, but hey, that's what TIVO is for. I'm pretty happy having Jon Stewart to counter Bill O'Reilly, but I don't think I'd want to see a liberal Limbaugh.

Having free speech means having to listen to ideas you don't like sometimes. I think that's the part of the First Amendment that the opposition would like to "reframe". Most of this hand-wringing over the FD is pretty much just snipe hunting to me.

[kitkat65]

9. Self delete

Cuz it made no sense after re-reading it. My bad.