Day 8 9: "Free Speech" held hostage, still no Democrats or progressives on CBS segment
On the September 15 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, the "Free Speech" segment featured writer and singer Joanne Lessner discussing the topic of cell phones in schools.
Day 8: "Free Speech" held hostage, still no Democrats or progressives on CBS segment
The "Free Speech" segment of the September 14 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric featured Michael Gerson, former aide and speechwriter to President Bush, commenting on the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. Gerson is the third Republican or conservative to be featured in the "Free Speech" segment since it debuted on CBS on September 5 -- he followed nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In that time, not one progressive media figure or Democrat has been featured.
Gerson, who left the White House in June, was recently hired by The Washington Post as an op-ed columnist.
Other than Gerson, Giuliani, and Limbaugh, the following people have appeared on "Free Speech":
- September 5: Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, commenting on the lack of "real, civil discourse" in the United States.
- September 6: Los Angeles Times reporter Sonia Nazario, addressing "the plight of hundreds of thousands of mothers now in the U.S. and the children they felt forced to leave behind in Central America."
- September 8: Comedy writer Jim Twohie, commenting on the length of congressional vacations.
- September 12: Muslim Public Affairs Council national director Ahmed Younis, explaining how American Muslims can help win the war on terror.
- September 13: CBS chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer commenting on the Bush administration's secret CIA prisons.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
CBS = Continuous Bull Sh*t
just got lost in the mail...
Did you ever see cute Katie-poo on the Today Show? She was like a hungry shark when she interviewed liberals or progressives and acted like an old friend to any right-wing Christofascist nutcase that came to Today for some positive feedback. She is one of the least impartial newsmodels around.
I seriously doubt that Crappy Broadcasting System has any intention of having a balanced news cast. Katie's average viewer is 65 years old and they tend to fall in with the conservative crowd. CBS, like Faux News, knows that truth and fairness are secondary to telling your audience what they want to hear.
Before Katie Couric debuted on the CBS Evening News, Drudge said Bill Maher was one of the upcoming participants for the new "freeSpeech" segment. But he hasn't appeared yet, and now we apparently know why.
"On Friday's Real Time on HBO, Maher explained that CBS approached him to do a 'freeSpeech' segment on the new Evening News. He asked if he could talk about religion but was rejected and told that he would be provided with a list of 'approved' topics," an e-mailer says. A second e-mailer asks: "Was he 'free' to express his views as long as he did not touch religion?..."
Approved topics? Guess free speech isn't free...
They're just trying to suck up to the rightwingers so they will finally stop their CBS/Dan rather/Bush AWOL remarks....
Morgan is somewhat progressive. He's no Mike Malloy or Randi Rhodes but he seems to lean left.
Do you want some cheese with that WHINE?
Ok 3 Conservatives [though I'd consider Rudy borderline], and Gerson and the OTHER guests hardly were there to spew Conservative propaganda... So that's really JUST one...Limbaugh.
CBS can ask anyone they choose. I'm sure they'll get around to FEATURING someone MMFA and Liberals APPROVE of. But please spare us this *Iranian Hostage Type Daily Count.*
Of course somewhere down the road MMFA will POINT out [maybe] that there's been 16 Conservatives and ONLY 10 Liberals. Whatever will they do IF CBS eventually has MORE Liberals than Conservatives as guests?? Well of course we'll NEVER hear about it, because that IMBALANCE would be just fine & dandy to Liberals.
Geez.
...which can complain if CBS has more Democrats than Republicans in the "freeSpeech" segment this year.
However, CBS is going the other way so far.
Exactly, "Free Speech held hostage" - aren't we being a little melodramatic here? For crying out loud, this is a minute or so of someone's opinion on many topics, is there really some scorecard that needs to be filled out afterwards?
Who will change their mind on any topic after watching some soundbite? And if they do, so what? This is not called "Every ideology WILL BE PRESENTED here".
Write to CBS and show your displeasure then. Maybe they will listen and give some liberal the soapbox for a few seconds. Then all is right with the world.
"held hostage"? Yipes, that's some good hyperbole there, ya hear.
I believe Rush Limbaugh did a similar thing during the Clinton Administration ("America Held Hostage") and there may have been a liberal talk show doing it since Puddinhead seized power, but I'm not sure.
Could it be that MMFA is poking fun at several things here, including the idea of Katie as a news anchor, the myth of the Liberal Media, and Conservatives who take themselves too seriously?
And perhaps Rushbo was out-of-line as well. Nothing was "held hostage" then either. As Open Mind says below: "it does tend to degrade the discourse."
I didn't take it too seriously, but nothing in the post would lead me to believe that S.S.M. wasn't trying to be serious. We may never know.
You're right...oops I mean correct ;-) I'd FORGOTTEN that Limbaugh used to do that regarding Clinton [America Held Hostage]. I used to listen to him back then [rarely catch him these days]
Ok I'll give MMFA the benefit of the doubt that they are being tongue & cheek here, THOUGH I still HOPE we're not going to get a thread like THIS everyday!
As I just wrote to open_mind I don't think CBS is even attempting to go for a POINT/COUNTERPOINT thing between ideologies here. So far, with the exception of Limbaugh [and perhaps Rudy], it appears they are concentrating on various topics-- NOT Conservative-Liberal political sound bites.
However, there are MANY Liberal voices that could lend their opinions to a number of topics for this segment, SO hopefully we'll see one or two appearing fairly soon.
---"I still HOPE we're not going to get a thread like THIS everyday!"---
Contact CBS. It's not Media Matters' fault. Your complaint is akin to being annoyed that your wife keeps asking you to take out the garbage. Just take out the garbage.
Limbaugh used to start out every one of his TV show spots with an "America Held Hostage" count (an out of line stab at the Clinton Administration and reminiscent of the Iranian Hostage Crisis).
I agree with Jeter's earlier points that if it doesn't happen in 2 weeks, then there is probably some room for complaints, but until then, we are just kind of borrowing trouble (sorry, I am paraphrasing what I think he said...pleas correct me if that is wrong).
I don't really take the obviously hyperbolic headline: "Free Speech Held Hostage..." too seriously, though I agree as well it does tend to degrade the discourse.
You remembered correctly what I wrote from another thread [on this subject]. IF no Liberal/Progressive voices are featured after a reasonable amount of time [2 weeks is, IMO, is reasonable], THEN there might be cause for some REAL concern. BUT again, OTHER than Limbaugh [and maybe Rudy] WHICH of the OTHER guests have REPRESENTED Conservatives, OR were there to present Conservative propaganda?
I liked YOUR suggestion of more Liberal guests [from the OTHER thread on THIS subject], especially Wesley Clarke or Al Gore.
I don't think ANY Conservatives here have a problem with having ALL sides be heard. BUT for the present anyway it doesn't appear that CBS is ATTEMPTING to do a "Crossfire/Point-Counterpoint" type of presentation between ideologies.
A rightwinger, with no other way to discuss the subject, says "move on, nothing to see here."
There is something to see here.
Without an agenda, a liberal would have been on this show.
Without blinders on, they would have realized that balance in segments like this is valuable.
This is just one more example of the falsehood of the liberal media bias. This is either an example of conservative media bias (they purposefully didn't choose any liberals yet) or an example of how ignorant some people who should be fairly smart can be (they don't understand that they need to have some semblance of balance in views presented).
The point about showing "every" viewpoint is a strawman argument.
Eventually they should give lots and lots of viewpoints on this show. They will never be able to give every viewpoint a public forum. They need to give the majority viewpoints most of the airtime, and they cannot possibly let every minority view get on the screen. So far they have done a really crappy job of being fair in how they have distributed the available airtime. They are either stupid or biased against liberals.
This is not "nothing to see". We should not "move on" from pointing out that they are not allowing their "Free Speech" segment to accurately reflect the USA's make-up.
Well SUE/Ellie your M.O. never changes... misquotes, puts words in people's mouths-- THEN goes off on a tangent INSTEAD of addressing the POINTS made in the post she's replying to.
Blather on Sue.
Really? Wow
Trust me on THIS one.
Hmmm.....
There you go again. Sue suffered a massive stroke over a year ago that rendered her incapable of typing, much less sock puppeting. You know this, but you continue to be a dick about it. Asshole!
Sue was posting as SLOUISE217 at The Daily Kos for months--TILL she got banned. SLOUISE217 just happen to be from Austin TX just like Sue and SLOUISE217@aol.com is Sue's e-mail [that she voluntarily left HERE at MMFA]. People at Kos ACCUSED SLOUISE217 of having a sock puppet named Ellie717.
All one BIG coincidence...I don't think so!
AND Ellie717 has gone after a few posters HERE using the EXACT same style as Sue.
Sue got BANNED. IF she ever in fact was sick...she RECOVERED quickly.
Tell ya what Scottie go do some research at Kos. I found it all by accident...and laughed my a#s off.
---"Blather on Sue.... IF [Sue] ever in fact was sick"--
Scott is correct, she had a heart attack. Furthermore, you're no angel. You took a much different tack regarding the poster "Helloagain/crlealsr". In that case, you (and Tommy) both tripped over yourselves to rush to his defense, even though the guy was obviously a blatant repeat offender and terms-of-use violator.
1) When YOU can't REFUTE evidence [I left plenty], YOU simply IGNORE it.
2) YOU can't EVEN repeat a "story" correctly. Sue ALLEGEDLY had a stroke, NOT a heart attack...AND yes I do mean ALLEGEDLY.
3) YOU stick up for EVERY Liberal on this forum, BUT whine if Tommy or I stick up for a fellow Conservative. That you can't see what a hypocrite you sound like is APPARENTLY way over your head.
I could care less IF Sue wants to post here under whatever name she chooses--IF she doesn't engage in her typical M.O. of personal attacks. I've always thought banning posters [unless it was for continual obscene language or persistent personal attacks and name calling] wasn't fair. BUT Ellie717 [on a different thread] went after Ben and JLyon calling them TROLLS and personally attacking them. Sue style. So I called her on it when she tried it on me [on another thread]. YOU spent MOST of your time searching for HelloAgain under his MANY monikers and turning him in for far less. So don't LECTURE me about Sue/Ellie717.
--"So don't LECTURE me about Sue/Ellie717."--
Kiss off. The woman had a stroke or heart attack. Your comments are out of line. You have a double standard. Attack me for flagging a terms of use violator (which Media Matters encourages), and then you rant about Sue. Give me a break. Kiss off.
STILL can't REFUTE the evidence...Still IGNORING it. Still SO typical of YOU.
Go fight with yourself. I'm right, you're wrong. Case closed.
---"evidence"---
Hey-maybe on your next conservative patrol through dailykos you can maybe dig up some real, honest-to-good "evidence" that I could actually refute. Something to prove your case that Sue didn't have a stroke. Because, so far, all your "evidence" amounts to is basically you-who never liked her to begin with-saying you doubt it and that she "recovered too quickly." (Nice sentiment, that is.)
but can you continue the soap opera elsewhere? Don't get me wrong...i go off topic too, but JEEZ.
There wouldn't be a "soap opera" except for the fact that jeter asserted above that a former poster here lied about having a massive stroke last year--a baseless remark that at least a couple of us happen to believe is way out of bounds.
I did not mean to offend.
That slouise217 was named Sue!
"I didn't even know....That slouise217 was named Sue!"...by ellie717
=====
Funny but YOU knew SLOUISE217's NAME was SUE on May 28, 2006. Yeah yeah I suppose you'll CLAIM you FORGOT, I'll believe THAT if you'll believe my name is really Derek Jeter. Save it for the gullible dear [e.g. Dave]
=====
Nope (0 / 0) You are wrong about me being a sockpuppet. Don't you think at least a couple of people have tried to implicate me as being slouise217 in disguise, and I am still here, and that's because I am not a sockpuppet. Really, if I were a sockpuppet, I would not have chosen such a similar name. Ellie is my first name and slouise217's first name is Sue so the names are not identical, but there are lots of people who use their names and a number, often their birthday or birth year, as their screen names!
I have emailed a couple of posters here and I sent messages to the "contact us" page too; I am not hiding behind a sockpuppet. I do not understand why some people think they should make allegations they cannot support. I am confused even more why more people don't trollrate such comments. It is exactly the kind of comment that Teresa makes that diminishes the voice of this site as I said above. The personal attacks do not help this site. It is actions and posts just like Teresa's above which drove me to get a User ID and post here. Unfounded personal attacks hurt this site.
by ellie717 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:06:15 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
=====
The above is from a DailyKos Diary by Arken dated Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:01:15 PM PDT
Read it Here:
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Scroll 3/4 down
=====
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive....
Jeter, you have apparently taken the gloves off regarding this matter. I guess you can thank MMFA's diligent way of showing us "righties" our contradictory statements as an inspiration for your own investigative research. The results can be very enlightening.
Rudy is not as conservative as some, but Giuliani is a 100 % Bush apologist. He and Christie Whitman assured everyone that the air in lower Manhattan was not toxic after the towers fell. They should have known better. Rudy also deflected blame from George Bush and onto the troops in Iraq for not securing the munitions dump at Al Quaqua. So much for his support of the troops.
He was also on to spread some shaky GOP views on how to fight terrorism. I.e. by going on the offensive against them (I read another attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq in that remark).
Most people would agree about being aggressive or offensive with terrorists, that isn't the shaky part, but it is definitely arguable as to whether this policy as applied by the GOP has made any sense at all.
And we can't forget that although Giuliani is only arguably considered a nominal Republican on many social issues, he is still a potential choice for Republicans in the next election cycle.
I'm NOT a huge fan of Giuliani, mainly because I believe people have gone OVERBOARD about his qualifications [for higher office] BECAUSE of 9/11. AND because of the very points you included in your post.
With a polemist like Rush the NEXT guest should be a Chomsky if you want even a semblance of balance. I am willing to be somewhat patient but YOUR assurance about what they MIGHT eventually do isnt really worth that much. EACH time they put on another centrist or rightwinger without ANYONE who could reasonably be considered representative of a leftist actually a far leftist point of view if you want to balance a Limbaugh it is going farther down the road of propaganda. As far as calling legitimate criticism of a lack of balance whining, thats pure appologist language. It is absolutly a legitimate criticism.
Other than Limbaugh [hard core Right] and Rudy, who is "Conservative", like Bill Clinton is "Liberal", I just don't think the OTHER guests can be judged by ideology. They seem more focused on particular TOPICS, NOT spewing propaganda...Left OR Right.
HOWEVER I do see your POINT about having at least ONE Far-Left guest to counter Limbaugh. And Chomsky is as good as any. I didn't know that much about him BUT because you've brought him up here before I've started reading up on him. I'll give you my verdict after I've read more.
How about a Franken to counter Limbaugh? Radio talk host vs radio talk host.
I used "whining" because quite frankly I don't see this as being as BLATANT as the IMBALANCE found on say, Meet The Press. Again only because the majority of Couric's guests thus far have NOT really been presented as political ideologues. I mean where on the Political scale would you place the Muslim woman? The comedy writer?
Well if nothing else, at least take comfort in the fact that CBS is 3rd in the Network News ratings and not too many are watching it anyway.
He'd clean Rush's clock for sure.
He is a partisan democrat. I would prefer Chomsky because of his overall brilliance and he says things you dont hear from partisan democrats. A few things about him. He is a Nobel Prize winner in the field of lingustics, he was called by the New York times arguably the most important intellectual alive. He won a poll taken on who was the most important intellectual by Foriegn Policy magazine with twice the votes of the runner up. In a poll of academics he placed 8th on a list of the most influential intellectuals of all time behind Plato and Freud. Things like that put him in a different category than Franken who would be a counterbalance for Limbaughs partisanship but in my opinion not as valuable as Chomsky who would bring a different perspective to a large segment of Americans. He would be saying things they flat hadnt heard before and introduce them to a perspective that is basically not seen in the media at all. Certainly he is very far left and I am not saying most would agree with his perspective but introducing it would have an effect I would like to see, and perhaps begin a dialogue I would love to see.
Jeter, Tommy, Con-Man,
Come on that is a little funny.
Ben
I don't really think S.S.M. was trying for humour though. If it had been an attempt at comedy, well then I obviously missed that in the reading of his or her post, and I apologise.
If Savage or Coulter or Beck said something similar in another context, it would not be viewed as nearly as funny as many have here.
Humor is in the sense of the beholder, isn't it?
Funny or not, it's just silly and waaaaaaaaaay too dramatic.
It's not up to the standards of other posts by MMFA. They shouldn't needlessly use language that will so greatly offend the humorless.
(Aha! I was being a little cheeky myself.)
There are many things that people on the right say and people here say it is not funny. Then others come on and tell them to lighten up. I am just saying I got a chuckle when I saw it and I hope you did too.
more liberals and real conservatives during this CBS segment.
I don't think they've had a real conservative yet.
If no conservatives or Republicans had been on the show in the first 8 days. It's not hard to figure out what the right wing talk shows would all be talking about.
I stronly believed that the Free Speech addition to the CBS evening news was a good idea. But with 8 segments gone by and NO PROGRESSIVE, the idea has become flawed. I had no problem with Rush the druggie going as long as Al Franken or Bill Maher or a Progressive who has a good comand of the camera was followed the next day.
CBS News is very disapointing. It is like they are trying to appease the Conservatives who attacked CBS because of the "alleged" bias against them by Dan Rather (which was far from the case).
CBS should fix the problem or get rid of the segment.
As we all know, conservatives have like 2, 3 minutes tops to get a word in edgewise on news programs. That's why they need this free speech segment so there can be some outlet for their views that escapes the liberal dominance. People can tune in to this segment to hear refreshingly new opinions that they don't get on other programs.
(Hmm, that didn't come off as sarcastic as I hoped.)
Apparently Katie's Free Speech Zone is akin to the Bush Free Speech zones -- if you disagree with Bush, you are relegated to side streets and far away from the cameras.
Then thes right wingnuts and Republicks wouldn't be setting the pace for all of America. Equal time, free speech, that's all we're asking for. Bring back the FAIRNESS DOCTORINE !
You do realise that the "fairness doctrine" stifles free speech, not encourages it, right?
Lack of a fairness doctrine + relaxation of laws governing how many stations one entity can own have turned talk radio into a vast Conservative wasteland.
And, no, I don't buy the argument that it is due to "market forces".
Would you prefer to not have the Fairness Doctorine in effect?
Normally I get "crack" or less specifically "drugs".
And yes, I think the "Fairness Doctrine" is not a good policy.
I know it's rough on some more progressive types, (and "market forces" have some to do with it, so it's hard to separate the two) but I don't think it's helpful, or frankly, enforceable.
Two Questions;
1) How does it inhibit free speech?
2) If the media were so liberal, why did a conservative administration abolish it?
CHECKMATE !!!!!!!!!!!!
Checkmate? Whatever dude... this ain't a game. DOn't know if you knew that or not. Anyways, since you are so insistent... You asked 2 questions:
1) How does it inhibit free speech?
A) It forces companies to broadcast a certain way and can create a "quota"-type system. If I want to have thirty liberals on in a row, that should be my right, no? Why should I have to bump 15 of them in place of some right-wing partisan hacks? We shouldn't be trying to control the media, eh?
2) If the media were so liberal, why did a conservative administration abolish it?
A) Not sure what you mean here, but it was ruled to be not legisilated by Congress, and therefore it didn't have to be enforced. The FCC subsequently dropped it. (1987) It was probably abolished by a conservative because, like it or not, it has to deal with markets, and conservatives are for open markets. Free markets, free speech... that's true conservatism.
I hope this answers your question, but I'm gonna go ahead and assume bad faith and guess you won't read what I have to say. Out.
AND hopefully so will TheRick [who I've found to be a fairly reasonable poster in the past]
You did an EXCELLENT job answering his questions.
The one thing I've SOMETIMES found around HERE is that IF you don't ANSWER a post right away SOME posters [I was surprised to see TheRick do it] will AUTOMATICALLY shout "I Win!!"
I'm at work posting SO there are times it takes me awhile to get back here. AND I've returned more than once to find some poster DECLARING victory just because I didn't reply within their "timetable".
Anyway, I enjoy your posts... Good to see you back on the forum
That checkmate thing was uncalled for, and I sincerelly appologize to ConMan for it. And sincere thanks for reinforcing my credibility with the Cons.
(This reads a bit sarcastic, but it is not meant that way. Writing comes accross so much different than speaking.)
You're correct as far as you went, but you left out a little subsequent history:
"However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987 [to dissolve the doctrine], 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."
[link to www.museum.tv]
That may be what Therick meant when he said a conservative administration abolished it (although that's not perfectly accurate). All three branches of government were in play: a court determined that Congress had not mandated the doctrine; an adminstrative agency dropped it; Congress attempted to reinstate it by legislation; and the president(s) vetoed it.
Sorry about that chackmate thing, it was wrong to say that. I must admit though, sometimes it seems like a game, after all, I'm in front of a computor, challenging a duel of sorts. . .
I must argue your points to my questions--
You wrote: "It forces companies to broadcast a certain way and can create a "quota"-type system. We shouldn't be trying to control the media, eh?"
Yes, we certainly don't want governmental control of the media, but without the fairness doctorine, the airwaves will be controlled only by those who can afford to get their message out. As a liberal, no I still do not want 30 Libs in a row, and yes I think quotas (perhaps a short rebuttal for opposing views) may be necessary.
You answered; "...it[The Fairness Doctorine] was ruled to be not legisilated by Congress, and therefore it didn't have to be enforced. The FCC subsequently dropped it. (1987) It was probably abolished by a conservative because, ... it has to deal with markets, and conservatives are for open markets. Free markets, free speech... that's true conservatism. "
Conservatives say the airwaves are filled with all things liberal, yet they are the ones who pushed for the Fairness Doctorine to be abolished when it would stand to reason that instead they should have been asking for equal time.
They wanted it gone because of free markets and such--I think not. Most broadcast stations are owned by conservatives. If it is true (and it is supposed to be) that the airwaves are owned by We The People, then one side should never be allowed to monopolize them.
By the way, free markets, and free speech are not values exclusive to conservatives. When it comes to markets and speech there are few differences (at least in this country) between Libs and Cons. I would say (just my opinion-no facts to back it up) Cons are feel more strongly about markets just as Libs are stronger on speech.
At he risk of this sounding like I think it's a game--Your turn.
Just joking around [he says sheepishly]
I will only address one as I have already addressed others in a different post. Free markets. By your definition GIVING a public resource to a private company to make money is somehow a free market. It is more like PUBLIC cost and private profit. It would be like allowing a company to mine gold in a National park without paying any royalties to the public just taking THEIR resource. The deal was that they would perform public service. To get out of that they petitioned congress to make PBS which is also under attack by conservatives. Those who make thier BILLIONS off OUR resource SHOULD do so at least sometimes in ways that benifit the public. Increased dialogue would benifit the public, giving both sides of all social and political issues would BENEFIT the public.
The other problem with the free market argument is that it implies that what is going on is that the public demand is what is causing such rightwing dominance yet this is demonstrably NOT true. In the last election you can see that it is split fairly down the middle politically. Look at the PIPA polls and you will see that Americans when polled on specific issues poll fairly liberally about like Finland. So what is the market forces that drive the political media rightwing dominance? ADVERTISING. When is that last time YOU bought any? Because advertising PAYS for the media and business pays for advertising the media exhibits a business bias.
Encourages speech that is paid for.
obviously.
The airwaves belong to US they are our resource. They are supposed to be partially used for public service. Opening up the dialogue to more than one point of view would NOT stifle free speech, it would encourage dialoge instead of the monologue we are getting at this point. Freedom of speech is no more an issue concerning what is said on the airwaves than my right to post a billboard on YOUR front lawn. By your definition the only ones with a right to free speech in the media are those who OWN it.
There is no need to introduce another government quota system. Free enterprise works!!
LET THE MARKET DECIDE!!! NOT GOVERMENT.
would lead to a "Lawyer Full Employment" culture, where there would be suits and countersuits over the perceived "Unfairness" of almost all items covered by the First Amendment.
broadcast licensee's would forego the court battles and give a paltry 5 minutes a week to opposing viewpoints. Nowhere in the fairness doctrine does it demand EQUAL time for countervailing opinion. It only requires an opposing point of view be OFFERED a chance for rebuttal. Moreover, the FCC proper does not regulate the matter, it is citizen driven oversight. The FCC then responds to citizen requests.
Also, in the history of the fairness doctrine only ONE broadcaster had its license revoked.
"Feudalism" is what happens when all of our culture is left to the free market. Be careful what you wish for.....history shows us that an unregulated free market usually ends with the poor rising up and murdering the rich.
It's American MSM, what do you expect? That's why America is ranked 32nd in freedom of press by Reporters Without Borders. Wake up people, you're not going to get there by hoping the press will assist. You have to take it.
On his show last night, Bill Maher said that CBS approached him for its "free speech" segment and noted that the soapbox comes with restrictions. His proposal to discuss religion, for instance, was rejected. Instead, he was given a list of pre-approved topics to discuss ...
So he turned them down.
maher also pointed out that katie called free speech a privilege, instead of a right under the constitution.
On Bill Maher he said he was asked to do a minute,but declines after he said he wanted to talk about christianity,Cbs then sent him a list of free speech topics he could free speech.He declined and wonder why a free spech segment could only be spoken if on the cbs list.SAd
What happens is that through laws and outright greed, those with the most money determine what you hear. Every time I hear some moron make the comment about let the market decide I want to throw up.
That is why we have laws. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The more powerful certain factions within the so called free market economy become, the more we lose in choice.
With Clear Channel controlling everything we hear, see or read, then there is no such thing as a free market. It then becomes a tyranny of thoughts, and ideas.
The Fairness Doctrine was vetoed because monied interests saw their first crack in the wall of democracy to take over what we think hear and see to as large an extent as possible.
Everyyear we hear about how the wealth of the nation is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people and corporate entities.
There is a saying by Supreme Court Justice Brandies:
You can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a very few or a democracy but you cannot have both.
He is right on target. The so called Free Market is a sham and one designed to destroy democracy. Ronnie Raygun, in the annals of time will be shown to be the true destroyer of democracy along with his little acolyte Dumbya.
Those who support the idiotic policies of this administration and the rightwing congress that rubberstamps everything this idiot in chief we have, are no more interested in democracy than the man in the moon and refuse to see the constant chipping away at the constitution by the Neo Conmen.
None so blind as those who REFUSE to see.
The so called Free Market is a sham and one designed to destroy democracy.
SHOULD HAVE READ:
The So called Free Market is a sham and one designed to destroy democracy IF LEFT UNCHECKED AND UNREGULATED.
Those that pontificate on the "Free Market" should remember the restrictions that Smith put on it. Chief being that there are a large number of buyers and sellers such that no one or small group can have an unduly influence on the market.
They should also remember that the market gives an answer not the best answer.
Regulations are put in place because abuses have happened in the past. Unfortunately most con-ists(conservative marketists), do not remember or learn lessons from the past, because they follow the rantings of a drug addict with sex problems.
They (CBS) also had a former speech writer for the gee dumbja. Broadcasters are granted licences in the public good. They are allowed to make money but are expected to produce programming in the public good.