Why should Obama have to pay CBS, NBC, & MSNBC ...?

[kentuck]

for a half-hour to talk to the American people? During these critical times, during a financial crisis, should not our candidates be permitted to speak for free? After all, the airwaves belong to us, right? John McCain should get a half-hour also for free. Isn't this just another example of corporate greed??

[tabatha]

1. But McCain does not have the money -

so he can't speak. Advantage Obama.

[AndyTiedye]

23. They'd Put McAin't On For Free

But he doesn't really have anything to say.

[bluestateguy]

2. This way he gets the airtime to himself

and doesn't have to be nagged by some mousy little reporter.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. There used to be a time........

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. The airwaves belong to us? News to me.

[Mind_your_head]

5. Well, under the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, that is no longer the law (but it should be)

Candidates got equal time for free. If a corporate entity gave 10 minutes of air time to one candidate, they had to give 10 minutes of airtime to the other.

Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist right now. Obama is signalling that, "HE STILL PLAYS FAIR". He's gonna pay for his airtime that he wants. mcSame can do so as well, if he chooses.

Obama just REALLY rocks!

What a decent, principled gentleman!

[onenote]

12. If you can find a citation proving that candidates got time for free under the fairness doctrine

I'll donate $25 to DU.

Its a safe bet. Because that was never the law.

[Mind_your_head]

13. Where do I have it wrong then?

Honest question. :shrug:

[onenote]

20. the fairness doctrine generally required that stations cover controversial issues

and (2) to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. However, it did not require free time be given to a candidate.

The equal opportunities rule would require a candidate be given free time, but only in response to a free use by the station by another candidate. In other words, if candidate A bought time, Candidate B had to be offered comparable time at a comparable price. But the station could charge for the time -- it wasn't required to give it to either candidate.

Indeed, under a corollary of the fairness doctrine, the 'personal attack' rule, stations were obligated to give free time to answer pesonal attacks. But that rule, on its face, exempted personal attacks by a legally qualified candidate on another candidate.

[Mind_your_head]

21. Thank you.....interesting. Things/situations were thought about in so much more depth

*back in the day(s)*

I believe what you say. Thank you for 'opening that window' to me by way of your explanation. I'm gonna look into it a little bit more now - for my own edification.

M_Y_H

[onenote]

22. no problem. I've been advising clients about these rules for a long time

[kentuck]

15. As I recall...

If one candidate said something derogatory or incorrect about the other candidate, then that candidate could request free time from the networks to respond? Is that not correct?

[onenote]

17. you are thinking of the "personal attack" rule, which specifically exempted candidates

Personal attacks; political editorials.
"(a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the <374> attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities.

"(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be applicable (1) to attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures; (2) to personal attacks which are made by legally qualified candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign, on other such candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or persons associated with the candidates in the campaign; and (3) to bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including commentary or analysis contained in the foregoing programs, but the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall be applicable to editorials of the licensee).

[JeffR]

6. He shouldn't, but I'm grateful that because of our donations, he can.

They've done their utmost to rig the system. Not this time.

[Sebass1271]

10. Why shouldn't he?

please read my post above on why HE MUST DO THIS. Obama is brilliant and I know that he is doing exactly for the same reason i stated above.

[Sebass1271]

11. I meant to say below.

Please read my statement below.

[JeffR]

14. No, I meant he shouldn't HAVE TO, not that he shouldn't do it.

He does have to. I agree with you entirely.

[Sebass1271]

7. Thank GOD he has the money to do this...

and let me tell you, that money is FROM US. I know i have said this before, but not everyone really knows Obama stands on issues. The media really doesn't report them only half minutes of half thruths. I am glad he is also doing it nationally there are a lot of people that only listens to Limbaugh and watches fox news.. A good half hour of Obama on fox will show these people at least half hour of his side of the story.

This the way i see this.

[elleng]

8. Because Ford, Comcast and Budweiser do,

silly!

[Lil Missy]

9. Here's a minute of my life I will never get back. What a dumb post.

[obiwan]

16. Because it's an infomercial. McCain would have to pay too if he had one.

Fucking idiot took Federal financing. Big mistake. People are giving what they have left to Obama. They're pissed. The GOP is toast.

[stillcool]

19. McCain doesn't need it..

he's got a 24/7 infomercial. It's called Fox news.

[stillcool]

18. Because it's the only way a Democratic...

Candidate can get the truth out. He can give a press conference, which they will cover a portion of, and then turn around a chat up William Ayers and disregard anything he said. It had to come to this. The 'news' doesn't cut it.