Lack of Fairness Doctrine Spawns Hatred Against Our President

Wonder where the Tea-party came from? Mystified by the incredible
vituperation and hatred against president Obama in the last election? Wonder
why President Bush got a pass on his crimes and blunders over the eight
years of his ruinous presidency? Look no further than the Fox propaganda and
right-wing media juggernaut" courtesy of the lack of a Fairness Doctrine in
media today.



With talk radio about 97 per cent conservatives and Fox News the only TV
channel many people on a limited income get on their basic cable setup the
media die is cast" into a slick corporate fascist edifice. Add to this
right-wing media machine the 5500 Christian broadcasters from radio and
television - who reach an estimated 141 million listeners - all preaching
the same Fox news Republican party line. In addition, nearly all major
newspapers and book publishers are owned and editorialized by the same
corporate, for-profit-and-propaganda, forces.



In this media lock-down setup we are not allowed to hear commentary against
the forced free trade scheme, compulsory globalization, all powerful private
central banks, incredible media consolidation, etc., in short, the essential
issues of our day. Without a Fairness Doctrine and spirit we have no way to
unlock the corporate zeitgeist controlling our nation, economy, and lives.
While the internet helps to galvanize contrary opinion, the reality is that
it tends to simply keep people in the very mindsets born of the aforesaid
corporate control of "our" society.



In effect, the media information circuit is overwhelmingly one way, one
party, one propaganda line. Only on the east and west coast major cities can
one hear any liberal or progressive talk radio to compete with the
incredible amount of stations that offer Limbaugh, Hannity, et.al. Here in
Southern California I can choose from Rush, Hannity, Glen Beck, Michael
Medved, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Rodger Hedgecock, Michael Savage, Laura
Ingraham, Mark Levin, and other conservatives. For the other side of the
political spectrum, if you're lucky you may get a station that carries Thomn
Hartmann and Randi Rhodes and that's about it for the liberal-progressive
side. Clearly, we suffer under an amazing and frightening imbalance of
opinion in media. Is this any way to run a democracy?



The imbalance of media political debate and information is surely unfair and
unethical if not criminal and a violation of media license privilege. One
has only to travel the country and tune in to local talk radio and TV to
discover the awful, and what should be illegal, disparity a situation
amounting to propaganda machine for one political party. In effect, most
people in this country, and especially in the vast middle of the nation, are
deprived of any real debate, any contrary opinion.



This damaged media estate is both an intellectual and political crime, as
well as a malfeasance and reason to yank air right licenses ostensibly owned
by, We, The People. At the very least it is a reason to reinstate a Fairness
Doctrine and bring a full-spectrum opportunity to Americans charged with
electing our representatives.



Yet fairness in media, meaning some license holding obligation to present
viewers and listeners with real contrary opinion for the health of our
democracy, is something the Fox news puppets vigorously fight, and they
clearly intend to preserve their propaganda advantage. As a result of the
lack of a Fairness Doctrine, however, the level of outright fabrication,
lies, and misinformation spilling forth in the last election cycle reached a
real nadir - a truly obscene level of discourse lacking any real balance.



"Fair and balanced"? Yeah, right. Hey, they own the media "weapons of mass
distraction" and they are aimed and fired every day at the people by drone
commentators loading in unison their Roger Ailes depleted-facts "talking
points."



Adding to our misery in this already one party fascist media estate is the
recent Supreme Court decision - Citizens v. United - in which the floodgates
of corporate, anonymous, money have been opened and the gusher has begun. No
unions or any group representing wage-earning people can ever compete with
giant corporations armed with billions in profits enabling them to buy up
all available air time, and effectively shut down contrary opinions and
media access in the networks they own.



If a Fairness Doctrine were restored we would soon see a wider, and more
relevant, variety of issues covered by TV and radio media and, hopefully,
from a greater number of perspectives. As things stand we only see-hear
issues a corporate media world is interested in allowing us to hear, and
everything else is covered from a pro-corporate, big business,
bankster-friendly, perspective. The public both needs and deserves exposure
to a wider variety of opinions on major issues like trade, banking, consumer
protection, unions, health care, global warming and energy, religion,
environment, constitutional amendments, and a National Initiative process.



As things stand, however, one side gets their opinion to the vast majority
while others are locked out by virtue of corporate media ownership and
preference. The corporate few decide what the many need to know. They
decide, we listen. In addition we have no Editor Freedom Act (see
EditorFreedom.com) removing media owner's private power to hire and fire top
editors in major media establishments who, in reality, are quasi-public
employees with a duty to fairness and truth.



Given this media situation, both democracy and capitalism are damaged,
distorted, and plagued by problems which greater information and media
access might prevent. The spectacle of people voting against their own
interests today, and confusing their interests with those of the richest one
per cent of this country, has no other viable explanation than the lack of a
Fairness Doctrine in media today.



As the Daily Kos put it: "All public broadcasters are licensed to use OUR
airwaves. It used to be that in order to be licensed they were required to
serve the public interest. One part of that public interest was to present a
balanced view of different political viewpoints and to cover controversial
issues of public importance.

This "Fairness Doctrine" requirement was intended to protect the public from
the possibility of moneyed interests buying up all of the information
sources, leaving the public hearing only their viewpoint.. There was also a
personal attack rule, which required stations to notify people or groups who
were attacked on their broadcasts and give them the opportunity to respond
on the air. And, candidates were given the opportunity to respond to attacks
or endorsements of opponents.



Ronald Reagan's FCC stopped enforcing and then got rid of the Fairness
Doctrine. Congress restored it but Reagan vetoed that. Under President
George HW Bush Congress again restored it but it was vetoed. Then, under
President Clinton the House passed it but the Republicans in the Senate
blocked it with a filibuster. In the last six years Republicans controlled
the House, Senate and Presidency and were quite happy with broadcasters
presenting only a narrow corporate viewpoint, and allowing personal attacks
to go unanswered. It is time to restore the Fairness Doctrine!



Restoring the Fairness Doctrine would open up America's "marketplace of
ideas." It would help to restor

Wonder where the Tea-party came from? Mystified by the incredible
vituperation and hatred against president Obama in the last election? Wonder
why President Bush got a pass on his crimes and blunders over the eight
years of his ruinous presidency? Look no further than the Fox propaganda and
right-wing media juggernaut" courtesy of the lack of a Fairness Doctrine in
media today.



With talk radio about 97 per cent conservatives and Fox News the only TV
channel many people on a limited income get on their basic cable setup the
media die is cast" into a slick corporate fascist edifice. Add to this
right-wing media machine the 5500 Christian broadcasters from radio and
television - who reach an estimated 141 million listeners - all preaching
the same Fox news Republican party line. In addition, nearly all major
newspapers and book publishers are owned and editorialized by the same
corporate, for-profit-and-propaganda, forces.



In this media lock-down setup we are not allowed to hear commentary against
the forced free trade scheme, compulsory globalization, all powerful private
central banks, incredible media consolidation, etc., in short, the essential
issues of our day. Without a Fairness Doctrine and spirit we have no way to
unlock the corporate zeitgeist controlling our nation, economy, and lives.
While the internet helps to galvanize contrary opinion, the reality is that
it tends to simply keep people in the very mindsets born of the aforesaid
corporate control of "our" society.



In effect, the media information circuit is overwhelmingly one way, one
party, one propaganda line. Only on the east and west coast major cities can
one hear any liberal or progressive talk radio to compete with the
incredible amount of stations that offer Limbaugh, Hannity, et.al. Here in
Southern California I can choose from Rush, Hannity, Glen Beck, Michael
Medved, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Rodger Hedgecock, Michael Savage, Laura
Ingraham, Mark Levin, and other conservatives. For the other side of the
political spectrum, if you're lucky you may get a station that carries Thomn
Hartmann and Randi Rhodes and that's about it for the liberal-progressive
side. Clearly, we suffer under an amazing and frightening imbalance of
opinion in media. Is this any way to run a democracy?



The imbalance of media political debate and information is surely unfair and
unethical if not criminal and a violation of media license privilege. One
has only to travel the country and tune in to local talk radio and TV to
discover the awful, and what should be illegal, disparity a situation
amounting to propaganda machine for one political party. In effect, most
people in this country, and especially in the vast middle of the nation, are
deprived of any real debate, any contrary opinion.



This damaged media estate is both an intellectual and political crime, as
well as a malfeasance and reason to yank air right licenses ostensibly owned
by, We, The People. At the very least it is a reason to reinstate a Fairness
Doctrine and bring a full-spectrum opportunity to Americans charged with
electing our representatives.



Yet fairness in media, meaning some license holding obligation to present
viewers and listeners with real contrary opinion for the health of our
democracy, is something the Fox news puppets vigorously fight, and they
clearly intend to preserve their propaganda advantage. As a result of the
lack of a Fairness Doctrine, however, the level of outright fabrication,
lies, and misinformation spilling forth in the last election cycle reached a
real nadir - a truly obscene level of discourse lacking any real balance.



"Fair and balanced"? Yeah, right. Hey, they own the media "weapons of mass
distraction" and they are aimed and fired every day at the people by drone
commentators loading in unison their Roger Ailes depleted-facts "talking
points."



Adding to our misery in this already one party fascist media estate is the
recent Supreme Court decision - Citizens v. United - in which the floodgates
of corporate, anonymous, money have been opened and the gusher has begun. No
unions or any group representing wage-earning people can ever compete with
giant corporations armed with billions in profits enabling them to buy up
all available air time, and effectively shut down contrary opinions and
media access in the networks they own.



If a Fairness Doctrine were restored we would soon see a wider, and more
relevant, variety of issues covered by TV and radio media and, hopefully,
from a greater number of perspectives. As things stand we only see-hear
issues a corporate media world is interested in allowing us to hear, and
everything else is covered from a pro-corporate, big business,
bankster-friendly, perspective. The public both needs and deserves exposure
to a wider variety of opinions on major issues like trade, banking, consumer
protection, unions, health care, global warming and energy, religion,
environment, constitutional amendments, and a National Initiative process.



As things stand, however, one side gets their opinion to the vast majority
while others are locked out by virtue of corporate media ownership and
preference. The corporate few decide what the many need to know. They
decide, we listen. In addition we have no Editor Freedom Act (see
EditorFreedom.com) removing media owner's private power to hire and fire top
editors in major media establishments who, in reality, are quasi-public
employees with a duty to fairness and truth.



Given this media situation, both democracy and capitalism are damaged,
distorted, and plagued by problems which greater information and media
access might prevent. The spectacle of people voting against their own
interests today, and confusing their interests with those of the richest one
per cent of this country, has no other viable explanation than the lack of a
Fairness Doctrine in media today.



As the Daily Kos put it: "All public broadcasters are licensed to use OUR
airwaves. It used to be that in order to be licensed they were required to
serve the public interest. One part of that public interest was to present a
balanced view of different political viewpoints and to cover controversial
issues of public importance.

This "Fairness Doctrine" requirement was intended to protect the public from
the possibility of moneyed interests buying up all of the information
sources, leaving the public hearing only their viewpoint.. There was also a
personal attack rule, which required stations to notify people or groups who
were attacked on their broadcasts and give them the opportunity to respond
on the air. And, candidates were given the opportunity to respond to attacks
or endorsements of opponents.



Ronald Reagan's FCC stopped enforcing and then got rid of the Fairness
Doctrine. Congress restored it but Reagan vetoed that. Under President
George HW Bush Congress again restored it but it was vetoed. Then, under
President Clinton the House passed it but the Republicans in the Senate
blocked it with a filibuster. In the last six years Republicans controlled
the House, Senate and Presidency and were quite happy with broadcasters
presenting only a narrow corporate viewpoint, and allowing personal attacks
to go unanswered. It is time to restore the Fairness Doctrine!



Restoring the Fairness Doctrine would open up America's "marketplace of
ideas." It would help to restore civility to our public discourse. It would
help restore our democracy."



Indeed, time for Congress to mount another assault on restoring Fairness in
media. Will Democrats mount a drive for re-instating the doctrine? Do
Republicans believe in media fairness? Or, is their "fair and balanced"
mantra utter fascist nonsense. We will soon see.



Indeed, time for Congress to mount another assault on restoring Fairness in
media. Will Democrats mount a drive for re-instating the doctrine? Do
Republicans believe in media fairness? Or, is their "fair and balanced"
mantra utter fascist nonsense. We will soon see.

"Kent Welton" wrote in message
...
Wonder where the Tea-party came from?

industrial strength snip




no

On Nov 28, 9:55*am, "Bremick" wrote:
"Kent Welton" wrote in message

...

Wonder where the Tea-party came from?

industrial strength snip

no

Bruce already trimmed the headers, so all I have to ask is, "Why do we
attract all the nut cases?"

On Nov 28, 5:37*pm, Jerry Dennis wrote:


Bruce already trimmed the headers, so all I have to ask is, "Why do we
attract all the nut cases?"

Our luck runneth over?

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
On Nov 28, 9:55 am, "Bremick" wrote:
"Kent Welton" wrote in message

...

Wonder where the Tea-party came from?

industrial strength snip

no

Bruce already trimmed the headers, so all I have to ask is, "Why do we
attract all the nut cases?"
______


I'm sure rcc is not alone. I thought we had enough with our own internal
assortment.

On Nov 28, 5:37*pm, Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:55*am, "Bremick" wrote:

Bruce already trimmed the headers, so all I have to ask is, "Why do we
attract all the nut cases?"

The proper way to trim the headers is to REMOVE RCC from the list.

(Are you listening Frank, et al)

On Nov 29, 2:28*pm, Phil DeMayo wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:37*pm, Jerry Dennis wrote:

On Nov 28, 9:55*am, "Bremick" wrote:

Bruce already trimmed the headers, so all I have to ask is, "Why do we
attract all the nut cases?"

The proper way to trim the headers is to REMOVE RCC from the list.

(Are you listening Frank, et al)

Normally I would, but my comment was directed to those of us that
consider ourselves "RCC-ers." BTW, Phil, nice to have you back.

Jerry

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
On Nov 29, 2:28 pm, Phil DeMayo wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:37 pm, Jerry Dennis wrote:

On Nov 28, 9:55 am, "Bremick" wrote:

Bruce already trimmed the headers, so all I have to ask is, "Why do we
attract all the nut cases?"

The proper way to trim the headers is to REMOVE RCC from the list.

(Are you listening Frank, et al)

Normally I would, but my comment was directed to those of us that
consider ourselves "RCC-ers." BTW, Phil, nice to have you back.

Jerry
_______________

Me, too. Leaving off RCC and sending to the others simply feeds the beast.
This way, if no rcc'ers care to participate further, the topic dies (in
theory). If the thread does continue, at least we have one branch with no
outside contributors.