Huckleberries Online

WND Poll: Fairness Doctrine

Feb. 4, 2009 8:12 a.m. • 29 comments

What do you think of the Fairness Doctrine?/WorldNetDaily poll

It’s needed now more than over
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have no business setting national agenda. The doctrine is necessary
Obama’s right. We can’t get good stuff done if we listen to Rush
It’s the only thing that will bring more diversity to media
It’s the only thing that will bring less diversity to media

We need the Fairness Doctrine for all outlets, not just radio
Conservatives dominate the media today, so government needs to force a balance with the doctrine
Liberals dominate the media today, so talk radio the way it operates now is a balancing force
It’s silly. Radio listeners choose a station of their liking, not for the other side
It’s a tool of government for control of dissent
Terrestrial broadcasting is obsolete anyway now that satellite and Internet radio are here
It would always be applied unfairly and unequally
It would be the death knell of the First Amendment
The result of this would mean thousands of radio stations dropping the talk format completely
It’s part of a plot for perpetual Democratic control of government
Other

29 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Charlie on February 04 at 8:57 a.m.
The so called “Fairness Doctrine” is nothing of the sort. It seems to be crafted to quiet conservative view points. If it were across the board it would affect TV broadcast, the internet and the print media. It’s a “Hush Rush” thing.
Each piece of electronic equipment I have has an off/on switch and can change stations. Not needed legislation. Congress, do some real work, quit fooling around.
BlueinIdaho on February 04 at 9:00 a.m.
Let the conservatives have the dying technology that is radio. Liberals owns the net. Fair enough for me.
Kage_Mann on February 04 at 9:07 a.m.
It wouldn’t be fair to conservatives or some independents,to try and silence conservative talk radio.The other side already dominates most of the other media and Obamas criticism of Rush was an attempt to silence him IMO.
Cabbage Boy on February 04 at 9:12 a.m.
“Liberals owns the net.”

Do you have a receipt? I think big business technically owns most of the pieces of the internet. As far as opinion on the internet, yes there is plenty of room for the liberal opinion, as there is for all the other useless ideas. :)
BlueinIdaho on February 04 at 9:16 a.m.
OOoh. Struck a nerve, I see. Let’s just say that liberals dominate the discussion on the internet and conservatives dominate the discussion on my alarm clock. K? I don’t believe many people under the age of 30 still listen to talk radio…or any radio for that matter. Rush who? :)
Cabbage Boy on February 04 at 9:31 a.m.
No, not a nerve. And I don’t listen to Rush or any political talk radio.

Just how do you see that the liberals dominate the discussion on the internet? Is that just a survey you took on the sites you visit?

Just curious how you discerned that opinion.
Arch_Druid on February 04 at 10:03 a.m.
While we are going tit for tat as to whom dominates what, I think that everyone on this thread is missing the bigger picture, Rush Limbaugh did want to set the national agenda and he even thought he had an important voice in dictating who ought to become president. What Rush failed to gauge was that the majority of the American public was fed up with the GOP in general and more specifically with GW. So, when Rush had to eat his words and then gag on them 4 November 2008, seems he is now either suffering from amnesia or a form of insanity, that he still thinks that he has an influence in what must ultimately happen in the current Congress and administration. People are very capable of making up their own minds regardless of Rush. And by the way, if he’s a “conservative,” I’m the pope.
BlueinIdaho on February 04 at 10:09 a.m.
Empirical evidence. Liberal blogs appear to be thriving, while conservative blogs are barely hanging on. Not sure if that is a result of the differences in technology adoption or some other apparent trait difference between the political parties. Nonetheless, it is apparent to me and thus I’m not too concerned about Rush’s aging listeners.
Cabbage Boy on February 04 at 10:19 a.m.
Ms. Druid, you are exactly right. He isn’t conservative. He once was, many many years ago. but then he jumped in bed with the big government GOP.

Blue, evidence or not, you have the right to your opinion I guess.
Sisyphus on February 04 at 10:53 a.m.
I find it hilarious and extrememly telling that conservatives are so very afraid ot the fairness doctrine which would require their pundits to give responsible opposing viewpoints. You don’t see progressives running from access to more information or subjecting their points of view to skepticism or critical analysis. I do recall that the country seemed less divided when it was in place.
misc on February 04 at 12:04 p.m.
The only ones going on about the fairness doctrine are the Republicans. No one that I’m aware of is considering bringing it back. So why are you freaking out?

I suspect Rush found another effective boogie man.
thawtfulreader on February 04 at 12:42 p.m.
I listen to a fair amount of talk radio, mostly liberal. One of the most popular is Ed Shultz, who often has noted conservatives or Republicans on his show, including, quite regularly, Richard A. Viguerie:

“The WASHINGTON POST called him the “conservatives’ Voice of America.” He has been credited with forming dozens of conservative organizations and with helping them grow stronger through political action, think tanks, publications, and representation in the U.S. House and Senate, state legislatures and other levels of government.”
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/viguerie.html

Shultz doesn’t screen any calls and often has conservative callers.

Air America talker Thom Hartmann often has Republican Bob Ney, the former Ohio Congressman on his show.

I can’t remember which Air America show he often guests on, but Republican Harlan Ullman, a buddy of Rumsfeld, is on once a week or so.

To my knowledge, conservative talk radio almost never has any notable leaders from the liberal side as guests/interviewees.
Cabbage Boy on February 04 at 1:23 p.m.
Sis, I guess it would depend on who gets to define “fairness.” If GW was defining it, you left bankers would be screaming bloody murder.
thawtfulreader on February 04 at 2:15 p.m.
BTW, back in the day, the Fairness Doctrine did not require the media outlet to provide Equal Time, just an opposing opinion from time to time.

I remember when the network news shows had actual, named, opinion pieces, and so did some of the local news shows. Then, from time to time, they’d have somebody give an opposing viewpoint, often it was just an ordinary citizen, as portrayed brilliantly by Archie Bunker in his opposition to gun control:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pD_3Nsw3lhI
BlueinIdaho on February 04 at 2:22 p.m.
IN the awesome words of the Colbert Report:

Limbaugh: Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.

Colbert: So true. It’s kind of like what talk radio does for unattractive men.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.