|
entertheclown
|
I think what's being referred to is what is usually known as the "Fairness Doctrine." It's an FCC regulation, now defunct, that required media outlets to present controversial, social, and/or political issues in a fair, balanced, and neutral way. One way that would be (and was) accomplished is to mandate equal air time to proponents of differing viewpoints - where an outlet provides time to one side, it must therefore create an opportunity to opponents.
You make a good point bringing up the "Fairness Doctrine". Sounds awfully similar to Title IX. If its good enough for our schools, it should be good enough for political air time. However, the argument could be made that a company can air/print whatever the editors see fit, and thus specialty radio stations and newspapers would become more pronounced. Either way, a change does need to be made.
|
|
Pooh Bah
|
What does the editorial staff have against potatoes?
|
|
cre
|
The Orlando Sentinel has over the past seven years done all within its power to negate any fairness in reporting the news. They look to place blame only on one side and effectively absolve the other. What nerve to point fingers for behavior the same as their own. US deaths in Iraq get headline coverage, any gains in Iraq are page 9 bottom left page inside. The Sentinel screams how everything is BAD day after day and then sits back and wonders why everyone is depressed. Politcal reporters cannot say anything positve about conservative representatives and spread endless praise on B. Nelson. The sentinel says do as I say, not as I do. And they wonder why subscriptions are dropping.
|
|
maddog
|
Gridlock is good. When the Congress generates legislation that becomes law it generally does one of two things, cost the taxpayers money or hinder our ability to make it.
|
|
bud
|
entertheclown wrote: Being fairly new to following politics, it seems to me that the style of politics is changing. No longer is a congressman reelected based on what he or she stands for, but is based mostly on familiarity. Its how often has the voting populous seen or heard their name and then voting for it while at the polls. That being said, in election season image is everything, and politicians seem to play the media like a bugle. Its all about getting their message out first and forcing their opponent to retort; controlling the game.
Should Congress have left for a 5 week "vacation" while in the middle of debate on important laws such as energy initiatives? No. However, when you have a president like Bush in office who will veto whatever he sees fit, you cannot blame the Democrats for not getting anything done in Congress. The Republicans are playing partisan politics and then are trying to whine about how the Dems are not getting anything done. Its pathetic to watch.
This is precisely why our government was not set up having political parties in mind. It was set up to have a large group of individuals make independent decisions about the direction our government should take. Not a bunch of puppets who get a new string every time some special interest group throws them some cash during election season. That is why laws take forever to pass, or die between party lines. this is exactly why you are named clown. did you flunk the first grade?
|
|
Presto Chango
|
Congress isn't failing simply because of partisan politics; it's failing because of its own burdensome rules and incompetence. Every bill has to be heard by a zillion committees, unless some high poobah decides to bypass them in accordance with some other set of rules known only to ancient Roman gods.
Some members of Congress started their terms as ordinary humans, but after exposure to the bizarro world of Washington, D.C., they mutate into something else. Ordinary logic is lost to them.
They never have to worry about doctor bills, so they can't understand why we clamor for solutions to the high medical costs and low or no insurance.
If they get a hang nail, they can go stay in Walter Reed for a year at our expense. Meanwhile, out in Real Worldville, I can't even get a medical test that my doctor wanted done because the provider insists my insurance won't pay for it.
They don't have to worry about the cost of gas or plane tickets because we pay for their limos and private jets. So how can anyone expect people so out of touch with reality to solve real problems?
Our best bet - a Constitutional amendment that either limits members of Congress to two terms for life, or a requirement that they serve at least half a year of each term working under the same conditions the rest of us endure.
|
|
Jim
|
FIRE THEM ALL! Take away their perks! And REDUCE their compensation to SANE levels.
|
|
Chris
|
cre wrote: The Orlando Sentinel has over the past seven years done all within its power to negate any fairness in reporting the news. They look to place blame only on one side and effectively absolve the other. What nerve to point fingers for behavior the same as their own. US deaths in Iraq get headline coverage, any gains in Iraq are page 9 bottom left page inside. The Sentinel screams how everything is BAD day after day and then sits back and wonders why everyone is depressed. Politcal reporters cannot say anything positve about conservative representatives and spread endless praise on B. Nelson. The sentinel says do as I say, not as I do. And they wonder why subscriptions are dropping. Hey cre...somehow I think a bomb killing 10 of our troops ranks higher on my list of news than a new school we painted in Iraq. Or how bout that great police HQ we built over there that leaks sewage on people's head?
|
|
|
|
DriveBy Poster
|
Chris wrote: <quoted text>Hey cre...somehow I think a bomb killing 10 of our troops ranks higher on my list of news than a new school we painted in Iraq. Fair enough. How about daily updates and comparisons, then, of the number of troops that are NOT being killed compared to last month, last year, etc.? Would that be too much to ask? For many in an increasingly slanted media, yes, apparently it is. The goal of a war is NOT to ensure that our soldiers survive. Maybe that's a harsh way to say it, but it's true.
|
|
doug
Lloyd, FL
|
DriveBy Poster wrote: <quoted text>
Fair enough.
How about daily updates and comparisons, then, of the number of troops that are NOT being killed compared to last month, last year, etc.?
Would that be too much to ask?
For many in an increasingly slanted media, yes, apparently it is.
The goal of a war is NOT to ensure that our soldiers survive. Maybe that's a harsh way to say it, but it's true. thats why wars should not be fought unless there is no other option because soldiers and innocent bystanders do die . Iraq was and is a war of choice Bush chose to invade Iraq they did not attack us we had other options but BUSH chose war and Mccain would do the same if elected no thanks.
|
|
DriveBy Poster
|
doug wrote: <quoted text>thats why wars should not be fought unless there is no other option because soldiers and innocent bystanders do die . Iraq was and is a war of choice Bush chose to invade Iraq they did not attack us... Well, these arguments are old, and there's certainly nothing that either of us can say that the other hasn't already heard and already rejected. So I won't bother going there; it's sufficient to say that I strongly disagree with you and the points you made, and I disagree for reasons you've already rejected. My point, though, and it may be sheer repetition of my earlier point, is that the legitimacy of any war should not be judged on how many soldiers die. Soldiers just aren't the point of war, I'm sorry to say. It reminds me of an old episode of MASH. Hawkeye, the surgeon, is upset that a particular soldier died on the operating table. Colonel Blake says "Well, all I can tell is what I learned in Command School. There are two rules to war. Rule number one is, young men die. Rule number two is, doctors can't change rule number one." And I kinda think the same about politicians. Once war is engaged, decisions can't be made based solely on whether young men will die, and when the decision to go to war is being debated, it can't be decided simply on whether or not young men (and women) will die. So for us to count deaths and get more angry with each one is really to miss the point, IMO.
|
|
Boat Guy
AOL
|
Skeptic wrote: As vile and hateful as I think conservative ANYTHING on the public airwaves is, anyone who seriously thinks that the Dems are trying to do anyway with conservative voices on TV and radio needs to put down the pills and turn off those talking heads! All conservative radio and TV does is instill paranoia and hate for anyone who doesn't think just like they do. You're creating an enemy where one doesn't exist!
The most ridiculous claim you make is that the Dems want to do away with individuality and religious expression!
It's nuts like you that make me fear for the future of this country.
<quoted text> I assume you don't listen to liberal radio or read the liberal blogs. Pure hate is all they have. That is why they are such commercial failures who have to be supported by people like George Soros. All in all when it comes to being positive, liberals are incapable of this since they are always angry. Why is this?
|
|
Chris
|
DriveBy Poster wrote: <quoted text>
Fair enough.
How about daily updates and comparisons, then, of the number of troops that are NOT being killed compared to last month, last year, etc.?
Would that be too much to ask?
For many in an increasingly slanted media, yes, apparently it is.
The goal of a war is NOT to ensure that our soldiers survive. Maybe that's a harsh way to say it, but it's true. Sure, how about daily updates on all the injuries as well? How about follow ups with the people who were interviewed after Saddam's fall? How about daily updates on the progress of whatever it is we're doing over there, anyway? How about updates on how many millions we spent each day? How about updates on how the status of forces agreements are going? How about updates on a different military unit and their readiness, losses, equipment, et al every day. How about all this, as well as following up on why we went to war in the first place? How about follow ups on where the architects of the war are now? How much have defense contractors made off of this war, and how much has the war increased their profit? How about updates on what exactly this war has accomplished? How about daily updates from all the agencies and think tanks that have said this war in Iraq has made us less safe and we'd be better off using less military and more law enforcement and local help? Problem is, some of these things have been done. Many people don't care, either because they think anything negative is biased because they've already made up their mind, people like yourself. Others just don't care.
|
|
doug
Lloyd, FL
|
DriveBy Poster wrote: <quoted text>
Well, these arguments are old, and there's certainly nothing that either of us can say that the other hasn't already heard and already rejected. So I won't bother going there; it's sufficient to say that I strongly disagree with you and the points you made, and I disagree for reasons you've already rejected.
My point, though, and it may be sheer repetition of my earlier point, is that the legitimacy of any war should not be judged on how many soldiers die. Soldiers just aren't the point of war, I'm sorry to say.
It reminds me of an old episode of MASH. Hawkeye, the surgeon, is upset that a particular soldier died on the operating table. Colonel Blake says "Well, all I can tell is what I learned in Command School. There are two rules to war. Rule number one is, young men die. Rule number two is, doctors can't change rule number one."
And I kinda think the same about politicians. Once war is engaged, decisions can't be made based solely on whether young men will die, and when the decision to go to war is being debated, it can't be decided simply on whether or not young men (and women) will die. So for us to count deaths and get more angry with each one is really to miss the point, IMO. so do you deny that Iraq was a war of choice by BUsh? I would no deny that death is part of war but its one thing to attack your attacker it is totally another to attack for no reason other than you dont like who is in charge. I believe John Mccain as president would act just like Bush and we do have a choice my choice is to vote for the man who will only start a war only as a last resort not as the first.
|
Judge it!
Taurus
Most Popular