General Discussion

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

24. Lacking cable, the televised access to both points of view is non-existent.

Reply to el_bryanto (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 29, 2015, 03:31 PM

Sep 2015

Lacking cable, the televised access to all points of view is non-existent.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

127 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fairness Doctrine [View all] RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 OP

Counter-argument el_bryanto Sep 2015 #1

Ok RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #3

^^EXACTLY^^ eom R. P. McMurphy Sep 2015 #8

Who has access to Fox and not MSNBC? WillowTree Sep 2015 #26

Back in the 20s there were maybe a hundred local newspapers in NYC... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #32

^^^^^^^^^^ RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #43

Those that listen to Faux, Breitbart, etc. GGJohn Sep 2015 #63

And this... RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #71

You're not making any sense. GGJohn Sep 2015 #77

You can Ichigo Kurosaki Sep 2015 #84

You would weigh a podcast.... daleanime Sep 2015 #4

I partially agree, wide viewpoints are available if you want them tech3149 Sep 2015 #12

Lacking cable, the televised access to both points of view is non-existent. LanternWaste Sep 2015 #24

internet eom melm00se Sep 2015 #31

IF you have the net Omaha Steve Sep 2015 #46

internet users in the USA melm00se Sep 2015 #52

Cord-Cutting Gets Ugly: U.S. Pay-TV Sector Drops 566,000 Customers in Q2 Omaha Steve Sep 2015 #53

Addressing all points of view is pointless and unrealistic... TipTok Sep 2015 #50

and who decides that? NT 1939 Sep 2015 #66

Sorry, my point was setting aside the obvious bit... TipTok Sep 2015 #73

Just for the sake of discussion... LWolf Sep 2015 #90

I don't know how you do this but I would love more accurate fact checking el_bryanto Sep 2015 #101

I think the answer to this particular counter argument is that PatrickforO Sep 2015 #108

The Fairness Doctrine would not apply to cable GGJohn Sep 2015 #109

It made some sense back when there were only 3 TV networks, but... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #2

Yeahup, it would be hard.... daleanime Sep 2015 #5

"Why do hard, pointless things" would be a more applicable question here (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #7

Honest dialog, pointless.... daleanime Sep 2015 #10

No doubt, fairness is indeed, pointless to the myopic and dogmatic. LanternWaste Sep 2015 #25

Should DU be required to allow a Republican "right of reply"? Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #34

So, DU, Huffpo, should be forced to allow RW views? GGJohn Sep 2015 #64

More to the point is that it only applied to TV stations... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #14

There by equaling..... daleanime Sep 2015 #16

You are mistaken. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #19

That's true, but it never did affect local stations, or radio, all that much... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #27

You are mistaken once again. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #59

^^^^^^^^ RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #69

No, it doesn't, GGJohn Sep 2015 #70

The genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #72

The Fairness Doctrine melm00se Sep 2015 #23

But was rarely, if ever, enforced against radio. TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #30

back when I worked in radio (1980's) melm00se Sep 2015 #35

What I find interesting is that there radio stations that still broadcast Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #80

I am not sure if the PICON requirement melm00se Sep 2015 #88

Should it apply only to over-the-air broadcasts? Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #6

Seems like applying it to DU is what gives us Discussionist. Dr. Strange Sep 2015 #51

I think broadcasting Rush... madinmaryland Sep 2015 #61

Under the auspices of the Fairness Doctrine, the following alternate viewpoint has been provided: Dr. Strange Sep 2015 #62

What would be the point? brooklynite Sep 2015 #9

There's perjury for lying in court. moondust Sep 2015 #11

Who decides what a "lie" is? Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #37

One example: moondust Sep 2015 #42

And even Fox News acknowledges that: Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #45

Chris Wallace is only one broadcaster. moondust Sep 2015 #49

Perhaps the solution is as follows.. Volaris Sep 2015 #44

Dunno. moondust Sep 2015 #55

You would see the end of all news Travis_0004 Sep 2015 #82

I agree with you 100% deathrind Sep 2015 #13

+1 daleanime Sep 2015 #17

I don't see this as a workable idea considering all the different ways media is consumed these days. Throd Sep 2015 #15

Neither are speed limits RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #18

Excessive speed is an immediate and identifiable hazard. Throd Sep 2015 #36

"A large group of people only exposed to a single set of ideas are also dangerous". Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #38

Nope, it's only the morons who disagree with me that need to hear the truth. Throd Sep 2015 #39

Seriously? RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #41

DU RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #40

And of course RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #74

I don't think the fairness is the problem. I think the real jwirr Sep 2015 #20

I agree. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #22

the question that I have melm00se Sep 2015 #28

I just looked it up. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #60

Many do riding home from work or other places. jwirr Sep 2015 #75

NBC had always been corporately owned. 1939 Sep 2015 #68

In addition to el_bryanto's comments melm00se Sep 2015 #21

With only 6 corporations controling 90% of the media. Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #29

There is too much concentration in segments of the media industry, but the six control 90 percent onenote Sep 2015 #47

I'd love to see it reinstated for the major commercial networks LanternWaste Sep 2015 #33

In a few years all broadcasting will be over the Internet Sam_Fields Sep 2015 #48

No it won't brooklynite Sep 2015 #57

They'd just put on a whiny-sounding moron to speak for the liberal side. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2015 #54

The fairness doctrine is outdated and unnecessary. frankieallen Sep 2015 #56

That is kind of my view bluestateguy Sep 2015 #58

Not when most Amerkuns get their news from tee vee. Octafish Sep 2015 #67

Agreed RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #76

Correct, GGJohn Sep 2015 #81

ABCNNBCBSFIXEDNOISENUTWORKS put on cable what they air. Octafish Sep 2015 #86

No it wouldn't. GGJohn Sep 2015 #91

You must misunderstand. Networks on cable run what they air. Octafish Sep 2015 #93

They would just change Ichigo Kurosaki Sep 2015 #95

If that's so, the FD should apply to cable. Octafish Sep 2015 #99

Sorry, but Ichigo Kurosaki Sep 2015 #111

My point has to do with news broadcasting. Octafish Sep 2015 #118

So basically melm00se Sep 2015 #112

No, the broadcasters on cable. Octafish Sep 2015 #117

Why not just mandate Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #114

Nice stretch. Octafish Sep 2015 #120

No, the point is you want people to be forced to watch what you agree with. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #122

You should make that an OP. Octafish Sep 2015 #124

The point is that all sides are presented, GGJohn Sep 2015 #127

No, with any new "FD" the cable channels would become completely distinct. Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #92

Then FD should extend to cable. Octafish Sep 2015 #94

No it shouldn't. GGJohn Sep 2015 #97

You must not mind, but I don't like Scalia and Cheney. Octafish Sep 2015 #102

I don't like either of them either, so I don't listen to them, GGJohn Sep 2015 #103

Not a matter of 'viewer' being lazy... Octafish Sep 2015 #105

The truth according to who? GGJohn Sep 2015 #107

The Ministry of Truth. It's right there in the name! Throd Sep 2015 #121

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't affect cable at all, GGJohn Sep 2015 #65

Agreed and any radio broadcasters affected would go to satellite. nt stevenleser Sep 2015 #78

Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that, GGJohn Sep 2015 #79

Donald Trump 2016!!!!! Travis_0004 Sep 2015 #83

And some would like the FCC to come knocking on Skinner's door if he hides your post (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #116

Nostalgia is a comforting blanket for some folks' memory. X_Digger Sep 2015 #85

Nostalgic for Democracy. Octafish Sep 2015 #96

The internet was full of bloggers lamenting the stolen election. GGJohn Sep 2015 #100

Great. Ask people away from DU what they know about it. Octafish Sep 2015 #104

Then that's on them for being to fucking lazy to learn about the stolen election. GGJohn Sep 2015 #106

President Obama sided with GOP to reject reinstitution of Fairness Doctrine Octafish Sep 2015 #87

Yes. LWolf Sep 2015 #89

We need less opinion, more fact-oriented, evidence-based journalists and anchors. OneGrassRoot Sep 2015 #98

I just want to know how to STOP sorefeet Sep 2015 #110

Propaganda, like beauty, melm00se Sep 2015 #113

You think Jesse Ventura should be given equal time during televised 9/11 retrospectives? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #115

Yeah, don't expect a coherent answer to that one. X_Digger Sep 2015 #125

The solution is simple. ZX86 Sep 2015 #119

We need to return to it or don't complain mmonk Sep 2015 #123

the more relevant approach would be net neutrality AND reddread Sep 2015 #126