General Discussion

Cetacea

(7,400 posts)

72. I "imagine". Was Obama"imagining"?

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 03:32 PM

Mar 2019

Some of my comments were a bit tongue-in-cheek but I by no means support censorship. Is food labeling unconstitutional? How about drug warnings? Do you honestly believe that the media is liberal? I think you misunderstood me. I'm merely suggesting that viewers be informed. Fox already has a disclaimer. I'm just suggesting it be displayed more prominently. Obviously the state of journalism is a subject that can be debated for years. I don't think anyone here is calling for censorship of news. Or opinions .

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What would it take to restore the Fairness Doctrine? [View all] Grasswire2 Mar 2019 OP

Dems should support it. elleng Mar 2019 #1

Hey gateley Mar 2019 #5

HEY, gate! elleng Mar 2019 #6

In my town, that meant that at the end of the day someone came on for 5 minutes SharonAnn Mar 2019 #82

How could that be applied in today's world? gateley Mar 2019 #2

This is what I'd like to know as well. jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #9

Begin with a definition of news and standards it must adhere to, Hortensis Mar 2019 #16

That would be unconstitutional except on the public owned airwaves GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #24

Right, news isn't just broadcast over 3 networks. BUT, Hortensis Mar 2019 #15

So some kind of government agency reviewing all media GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #25

Well, thanks for seemingly reading my stream of consciousness. Hortensis Mar 2019 #78

You are wrong on all fronts. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #79

Okay, thanks for wading through stream withdrawn. Hortensis Mar 2019 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author Cetacea Mar 2019 #75

It isn't going to happen, that door has unfortunately cllosed. Paddy Chayefsky fortold this still_one Mar 2019 #3

And news divisions no longer can be loss leaders. calimary Mar 2019 #7

Completely redoing our communications... TreasonousBastard Mar 2019 #4

Fox News is cable. The Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable television. Brother Buzz Mar 2019 #8

The Dems could run on this issue if it was framed as getting rid of "fake news" and requiring allgood33 Mar 2019 #10

You want democrats to run under a censorship banner. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #26

Thank you. Codeine Mar 2019 #28

I support censoring state sponsered TV stations Cetacea Mar 2019 #29

State sponsored TV stations? Like PBS? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #30

Has PBS stated that they are an arm of the Democratic Party? Cetacea Mar 2019 #33

So you only want to censor people who disagree with us? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #35

I suppport real journalism. Fox is legally an entertainment channel. Cetacea Mar 2019 #37

As do we all. But who gets to decide the definition of 'real'? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #40

And I'm sure my neighbors would support a bill Codeine Mar 2019 #45

Good idea. Both an extension of Fox. All three combine opinion shows with news. Cetacea Mar 2019 #46

Still a clear-cut and obvious violation Codeine Mar 2019 #67

I "imagine". Was Obama"imagining"? Cetacea Mar 2019 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author Cetacea Mar 2019 #77

You can yell fire in a theater all you want. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #81

Be my guest. But video or it didn't happen Cetacea Mar 2019 #86

Newspapers do that voluntarily, Codeine Mar 2019 #84

Feel free to write the Times and tell them it's nonsense Cetacea Mar 2019 #87

It would take a literal return to the 1950s/60s/70s jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #11

It would have to be written in a way that murielm99 Mar 2019 #13

That brings up huge First Amendment issues. Codeine Mar 2019 #18

This jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #19

That is what I was thinking. murielm99 Mar 2019 #88

Stiffer laws regarding labeling/disclaimers could be passed. Fox entertainment, for example. eom Cetacea Mar 2019 #31

I actually like that suggestion. jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #39

Hmmm Cetacea Mar 2019 #43

Again, you're butting up against the Constitution. Codeine Mar 2019 #44

Yet governments restrict war journailsm Cetacea Mar 2019 #47

State secrets would be one of the few Codeine Mar 2019 #64

Bush 1, fearing another Viet-Nam type backlash, restricted war journalists Cetacea Mar 2019 #69

Like DU for example ? MichMan Mar 2019 #83

Those poor Russian trolls would be exhausted. nt Codeine Mar 2019 #85

Reagan began ignoring the FD in 1987. According to experts, appalachiablue Mar 2019 #12

Coughlin was a scary lunatic. jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #20

Impossible to legislate or implement in the modern media environment... Baconator Mar 2019 #14

Very little media is "broadcast" anymore. Codeine Mar 2019 #17

Either a time machine or a Constitutional amendment onenote Mar 2019 #21

Or Democrats can attach it as a rider to must-pass legislation meow2u3 Mar 2019 #22

That won't prevent it from being struck down as unconstitutional onenote Mar 2019 #23

It was in force for decades with no challeng to its constitutionality DBoon Mar 2019 #32

Because media no longer utilizes publicly owned Codeine Mar 2019 #41

Because the "scarcity" of media that existed in the 1940s-1980s onenote Mar 2019 #42

The entire premise of the doctrine was based on allocation of scarce broadcasting resources jberryhill Mar 2019 #56

How does that overcome the fact that Codeine Mar 2019 #27

There you go.......Clouding the issue with facts again. WillowTree Mar 2019 #36

I'll just reiterate what others have said. It would be useless today The Genealogist Mar 2019 #34

People pushing government censorship to 'save our country' have lost their ability to detect Irony GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #38

It would take the destruction of the internet and the return of only 3 networks scheming daemons Mar 2019 #48

+1 grantcart Mar 2019 #49

I'm personally against Turin_C3PO Mar 2019 #50

for Congress to have a spine and a sense of decency gopiscrap Mar 2019 #51

The Fairness Doctrine was based on federal licensing power over broadcasters. A failure to empedocles Mar 2019 #52

The Red Lion case did not result in the forfeiture of a license. onenote Mar 2019 #53

A federal shutdown of the internet and cable tv? theboss Mar 2019 #54

What would it take? rsdsharp Mar 2019 #55

I have the answer. Got the idea from Trump's reaction to FoxNews being blocked Baitball Blogger Mar 2019 #57

no kidding. good idea. nt Grasswire2 Mar 2019 #58

I see that Daily Kos is mounting an activist fight against FOX Grasswire2 Mar 2019 #59

If the Fairness Doctrine wont work, what will? Brawndo Mar 2019 #60

Imo, the fairness doctrine as a concept is nonsensical at best, and Oneironaut Mar 2019 #61

+1000 Power 2 the People Mar 2019 #62

How many people do you think watch Fox News every night? onenote Mar 2019 #63

This! Codeine Mar 2019 #65

2 to 3 million. But the propaganda spreads like a virus. Power 2 the People Mar 2019 #66

We really need to outlaw FNC since it is just hate speech... Joe941 Mar 2019 #68

"Hate speech is not free speech." FiveGoodMen Mar 2019 #71

Stop. Codeine Mar 2019 #73

A nation that believed in fairness FiveGoodMen Mar 2019 #70

Nothing will. Soon all broadcasting will be online KWR65 Mar 2019 #74

I can see it now... Act_of_Reparation Mar 2019 #76

Something should definitely get on the platform. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2019 #89

Regulation of political speech. Codeine Mar 2019 #90

Regulation like the fairness doctrine. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2019 #91

The fairness doctrine died with the Codeine Mar 2019 #92

Then count me in for countervailing speech. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2019 #93

Whatever you did... jmowreader Mar 2019 #94