How would the Fairness Doctrine effect a radio station that has a Libertarian talk show?
October 13th, 2009 | by admin |I know that the Fairness Doctrine is supposed to force stations to air opposing views. A Libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. So a conservative show or a liberal show wouldn’t "balance" Libertarian views. As far as I know, there aren’t any talk shows that have a fiscally liberal and socially conservative host.
I listen to a Libertarian talk show in the mornings (Neal Boortz) and I was just wondering how the government would try to balance out those views.
There is no definitive answer to this. That is the biggest problem. What some may view as liberal others may view as conservative and vice versa.
First someone would have to define Liberal and Conservative, for their to be a balance. That simply can’t or won’t happen.
Liberal talk shows don’t work and the Senator from MI or wherever who is pushing for this happens to be married to the someone high on the food chain of the bankrupt "Air America"! LOL!!!
NO conflict there! Air America is proof that liberals viewpoints just don’t want to be heard. If people did want to hear them they wouldn’t go bankrupt.
Tags: Air America, Conflict, Definitive Answer, Fairness Doctrine, Food Chain, Liberals, Libertarian Views, Neal Boortz, Opposing Views, Proof, Quot, Radio Station, Radio Talk, talk show, Viewpoints
By Why Land '41 on Oct 13, 2009
Who’s definition of "Libertarian" are you using????
You can’t be fiscally liberal and socially conservative. It just doesn’t work. That’s like throwing dollars into the fire.
References :
By AgriCult on Oct 13, 2009
oppose the fairness doctrine. BS artists like Rush Limbaugh are being exposed as full of it. That is as it should be. Any law trying to remedy these types of situations will just backfire. The first amendment is fine as it is.
References :
and you should be allowed to listen to your favorite pundits unfettered by opposing views if that’s what you want to hear. I like c-span the best because it is constantly back and forth opposing views. so c-span remains a standard because there is a demand for that. especially now with the internet, how can you impose rules of freedom of speech. just let everyone speak, and the most popular voices will rise to challenge the status quo, and be challenges by opponents whether it’s during their own show, or on opposing networks.
By Jesus_Is_My_Gardner on Oct 13, 2009
they would let the libertarians speak and then a sane person would offer a counterpoint
References :
By Ryan on Oct 13, 2009
Basically he would have to have an opposing view for everything issue he talks about.
References :
By punkydoodle218 on Oct 13, 2009
I don’t have a answer for you, but I’m sure about one thing, I’m totally against putting the Fairness Doctrine back into place. I’m hoping it never happens.
References :
By Musicman812 on Oct 13, 2009
There are thousands of different views and they don’t fit nicely in
1. Republican
2. Democratic
3. Libertarian
ideologies.
Do you suppose we should have a thousand talk shows w/ a 3 minute window per show? Seems only "fair" don’t you think? we’ll have a thousand.
Why don’t we let the free-market dictate which words are valued and which aren’t.
If liberals want a slot so badly — produce a show that turns a profit. That’s not that hard to do…unless of course nobody wants to listen to what you have to say.
1. NPR and PBS — would be dead w/o government support
2. Air America failed miserably — fell flat on its face.
References :
By Member of the GOP on Oct 13, 2009
Fairness Doctrine is only to stop the truth from being told. Therefore, there is nothing fair about it.
References :
By dlk on Oct 13, 2009
The fairness doctrine is a way to shut down opposing views of the Government, period. It is nothing meaning "fair"
References :
By Wowie on Oct 13, 2009
(I love Boortz)
I have no idea what they plan to do about Boortz and the like.
I think the Doctrine is completely ludicrous and has many flaws, unless the plan on making CNN, MSNBC, and Fox etc a venue of "equal but opposing" opinions as well.
It’s sad that Ms. Clinton and the like believe it is in their right to stop people’s freedom of speech and rights of the press.
References :
By Panda on Oct 13, 2009
The Fairness Doctrine would allow opponents to air their viewpoint along side each other . . it worked perfectly for years prior to the Republicans getting rid of it. Getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine basically opened up our public airwaves to propaganda . . people are forever pigeon holed into hearing only one side of the issues on any given radio or television station . . this rule would apply to both conservative and liberal airwaves, by the way . . you know . . fairness.
If anyone opposed what the Liberatarians were saying than they would get equal time for their point of view.
References :
By Daze on Oct 13, 2009
That is the correct definition of "libertarian".. contrary to other answerers.
The fairness doctrine is a non-starter, I wouldnt get too worried about it. The president is against it and it only has tepid support at best in congress.
Besides it being a silly idea… take "Hannity & Colmes" for instance. Did anyone really believe that show was "fair" because Hannity kept around a mealymouthed guy named Colmes?
The whole thing doesnt work…
Be conservative, be liberal, be whatever. If people wanna listen they will, if they dont.. then they wont.
References :
By elmar66 on Oct 13, 2009
There is no definitive answer to this. That is the biggest problem. What some may view as liberal others may view as conservative and vice versa.
First someone would have to define Liberal and Conservative, for their to be a balance. That simply can’t or won’t happen.
Liberal talk shows don’t work and the Senator from MI or wherever who is pushing for this happens to be married to the someone high on the food chain of the bankrupt "Air America"! LOL!!!
NO conflict there! Air America is proof that liberals viewpoints just don’t want to be heard. If people did want to hear them they wouldn’t go bankrupt.
References :
By Eric R on Oct 13, 2009
If it doesn’t fit the far left agenda, it will be censored. This will be tried over and over and over, but the people will not stand for it.
References :
common sense and U.S. history
By Reba K on Oct 13, 2009
Libertarians would win, of course…because it’s their show.
References :
By 1StSgt USMC Ret on Oct 13, 2009
The fairness doctrine is the liberals idea of shutting down free speech.
References :
By Tubby on Oct 13, 2009
"I know that the Fairness Doctrine is supposed to force stations to air opposing views."
You are completely and utterly wrong.
References :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
By celexa on Oct 13, 2009
That is a great question. Of coarse their is nothing fair about it. I have signed this very important petition to save Freedom of Speech and so should you. http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=19642267&NID=1
References :
By Taylor on Oct 13, 2009
Basically you show will get axed.
This "Fairness Doctrine" is an abomination to freedom of speech and freedom of press.
References :
By Rob W on Oct 13, 2009
easy: Libertarians just need to invite well known Fascists to the show. Perfect balance
References :
By mccrackan on Oct 13, 2009
The "Black community" (such as it is) is traditionally socially conservative and fiscally liberal. There must be a representative host out there somewhere.
References :
Tavis Smiley Show
By Ravage on Oct 13, 2009
Good question. It seems to me that the Liberals who are pushing the "fairness" doctrine only want it to affect talk shows they disagree with, so as long as they don;’t disagree, I think Neal Bortz is safe. (I listen to him too).
References :
By Donald F on Oct 13, 2009
You can balance the Libertarians with Republican Fascists and Democratic Socialists, virtually anybody that is a "Statist", which is the majority of the people and politicians. Neil Boortz is not really a "libertarian" and is more of a conservative libertarian.
I say that because he is for the Fair Tax idea which doesn’t address the validity of state taxation in the first place. He also doesn’t criticize the Federal Reserve as far as I know (Socialist Monetary Policy). The big no no is his strong support of the "War on Terror".
The whole idea of the Fairness Doctrine is a scam anyway. It inevitably will lead to restriction of free speech. Who ever has power will have the power to determine the so called "fairness". It reeks of socialism and fascism at the same time.
Right now the Dems have the power. If the Republicans regain power, believe me under this Fairness doctrine, they will target Hollywood, newspapers and TV news and shows that have a liberal bias.
References :