A) The media is LIEBERAL LIEBERAL LIEBERAL! Wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine then demand that there be some good, honest, god-fearing conservative viewpoints on the airwaves?
But the conservatives don't want the Fairness Doctrine.
So either 1) the conservatives want to keep up a victim complex, and/or 2) the media is actually conservative and the Fairness Doctrine would force more LIEBERAL airtime.
So what is it, El Rushbo of the Holy Oxycontin? Are you stupid or a liar or both?
Now, passing the first logical fallacy, we get into the second. Let us refer to Wikipedia.
According to Steve Rendall of the progressive media criticism group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting,
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
Going by its' face, it would not silence conservative voices. At all. Okay, well, theoretically, it could by cutting into a conservative's airtime to allow time for a liberal to respond.
But it doesn't demand equal time, it just demands airtime be given for opposing opinions.
It doesn't shut conservatives up at all, it just demands that time be spent on "controversial matters of public interest" and "air contrasting views".
Our Lord and Master of Underage Sex Tourism would have to give time to opposing views. Giving time to opposing views certainly isn't forcing any conservatives to shut up... well, unless you are of the belief that airing any liberal or progressive views is tantamount to treason, or can't really develop any rebuttal outside of calling them names and feeding into race, gender, or orientation hatred.
So, long story short, Mr. Limbaugh is full of bullshit. Big surprise.
As an aside, I don't know if I'd support the Fairness Doctrine, really, I don't think about it. I know Obama doesn't support it, but... well, going back to Wikipedia:
"That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
That, to me, sounds far, far better than forcing broadcasters to give time to opposing viewpoints, and would be a HELL of a lot more dangerous to Rushbo and his like.
March 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM
As John Cole points out, the one thing that would serve to put a leash on Rush Limbaugh's power is the Fairness Doctrine, and right now the man in the GOP with the biggest, loudest, microphone reaching millions of GOP primary voters for 4 hours, 5 days a week is El Rushbo himself.
You'd think the people who want Obama's job in 2012 would want that kind of exposure too (and get paid for it.) But hey, the Fairness Doctrine is a fascist, unconstitutional law that would limit Rush and his near total fascist control of the GOP.
1 Comment
Close this window Jump to comment formWanna know what makes this hilarious?
A) The media is LIEBERAL LIEBERAL LIEBERAL! Wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine then demand that there be some good, honest, god-fearing conservative viewpoints on the airwaves?
But the conservatives don't want the Fairness Doctrine.
So either 1) the conservatives want to keep up a victim complex, and/or 2) the media is actually conservative and the Fairness Doctrine would force more LIEBERAL airtime.
So what is it, El Rushbo of the Holy Oxycontin? Are you stupid or a liar or both?
Now, passing the first logical fallacy, we get into the second. Let us refer to Wikipedia.
According to Steve Rendall of the progressive media criticism group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting,
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
Going by its' face, it would not silence conservative voices. At all. Okay, well, theoretically, it could by cutting into a conservative's airtime to allow time for a liberal to respond.
But it doesn't demand equal time, it just demands airtime be given for opposing opinions.
It doesn't shut conservatives up at all, it just demands that time be spent on "controversial matters of public interest" and "air contrasting views".
Our Lord and Master of Underage Sex Tourism would have to give time to opposing views. Giving time to opposing views certainly isn't forcing any conservatives to shut up... well, unless you are of the belief that airing any liberal or progressive views is tantamount to treason, or can't really develop any rebuttal outside of calling them names and feeding into race, gender, or orientation hatred.
So, long story short, Mr. Limbaugh is full of bullshit. Big surprise.
As an aside, I don't know if I'd support the Fairness Doctrine, really, I don't think about it. I know Obama doesn't support it, but... well, going back to Wikipedia:
"That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
That, to me, sounds far, far better than forcing broadcasters to give time to opposing viewpoints, and would be a HELL of a lot more dangerous to Rushbo and his like.
March 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM