http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kGZdtRoozE
Fascinating and insightful video. Whoever wins the Presidency should bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Ronald Reagan so foolishly and selfishly eliminated. It’s a real shame that this subject didn’t come up in the debates, but then again, guess who runs the debates? MAINSTREAM MEDIA!! Thank God for PBS, CSPAN, and the Internet! As citizens of the US, we must not tolerate this garbage. We have a right to know what goes on in our country, and (as ABC so profoundly showed in their “debate” with Obama and Hillary) MSM needs to be reformed badly. Please help make this topic viral. I will continue to post more on this subject as I find out about it.
Edit: Looks like Obama is looking to improve this. Check out this link.
UPDATE! Below is an article from PBS about the history of the Fairness Doctrine. And here is the link to it.
History of the Fairness Doctrine
You may remember hearing about Sinclair Broadcast Group in October 2004. They attracted attention from other media outlets when they announced plans to air STOLEN HONOR, described by some as an “anti-Kerry documentary.” Ultimately, the documentary was not aired, as critics called for balance from Sinclair by way of programming that showed the other side of the story, calling on a principle called the “fairness doctrine.” While this doctrine is no longer enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it hasn’t faded from public discourse. What is the history behind this doctrine?
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, called for stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates running for office. (Learn about the history of televised presidential debates.) The idea was to ensure even-handedness in a time when available frequencies were limited. This federal law did not apply to news programs, interviews, and documentaries. During the 1940s, stations were prevented by the FCC’s “Mayflower Doctrine” from editorializing, but by the end of the decade, the ban had softened to allow editorializing only if other points of view were also aired to balance those of the station.
In 1949, the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as “public trustees” and, as such, responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on these issues.
Later, in 1967, two corollary doctrines were added. The first was the political editorial rule, requiring that if a station editorialized either for or against a candidate for public office, the station had to notify the disfavored candidate within 24 hours and allow him/her to reply to the editorial; the second was the personal attack rule, which states that when a person or group’s character or integrity is impugned during the discussion of a controversial issue, the station must notify the person within one week, and offer a reasonable time for response.
By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.
As this was happening, Congress passed a bill to make the fairness doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. In 2000, when the FCC failed to justify the two remaining corollary rules, the political editorial rule and the personal attack rule were repealed.
Efforts to resurrect the fairness doctrine have come up again and again before Congress, but no bill has yet been passed. Read a conversation between Bill Moyers and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter about her latest effort, The MEDIA Act.
For further research, visit our FCC and media deregulation resources.
You people are not smart enough to argue with, but for heavens sake (not that that means anything to you), how could communist fools be for the so called fairness doctrine? Heck, it is so blatantly anti-freedom of speech that even a leftist nut-job could see it. The left in this country have trillions of dollars of free advertisement in this country every day and yet they still want more power by using Putin type tactics on the people they try to bully. Ironically, all the while, they complain about the same. Sad excuses for human beings if you ask me. Pathetic!
Just like the media in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador became corrupt to help Marxists (Chávez, Morales and Correa) gain power, the media in the U.S. shows corruption to help another Marxist (Obama) get elected.
While most news reports about Obama are positive, most news reports about McCain are negative. And ever since Sarah Palin was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate, the media have gone wild criticizing, ridiculing and insulting her at every turn. Most of those attacks have been factually wrong and intellectually dishonest.
In addition to attacking McCain and Palin, the mainstream media is also attacking anyone who tries to show Americans the real Obama. Even Joe the Plumber has been vilified for asking a question that prompted Obama to uncover his plan to “redistribute the wealth.”
The smear campaign against Jerome Corsi is a case in point. Corsi is a senior staff reporter of World Net Daily (WND) and the author of the New York Times No. 1 best-selling book, “The Obama Nation.”
An independent and courageous journalist, Corsi put his life and well-being at risk to travel to Kenya to dig up the truth about presidential candidate Obama. Corsi was rightfully concerned, as any thinking American should be, about Obama’s connections to Kenya’s thug Raila Odinga.
CNN attacked Corsi and defended Obama. “Book on Obama blasted for ‘vicious innuendo’” wrote the title of a CNN article. “There’s a new book out about Barack Obama that some say is riddled with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumor you’ve ever heard about the Illinois senator.”
CNN continued with negative comments against Corsi from the Obama camp, but it never bother to cover the most important issue for Americans, the issue presented in Corsi’s book: the connection between Obama and his Marxist relative Odinga. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/14/corsi.book/
The New York Times also focused on attacking Corsi’s credibility calling him a “gadfly.” “In the summer of 2004 the conservative gadfly Jerome R. Corsi shot to the top of the best-seller lists as co-author of “Unfit for Command,” began the New York Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/us/politics/13book.html
Showing complete lack of ethics, the mainstream media has failed to properly inform Americans about what Obama did in Kenya. They have justified ignoring this story based on comments from the Obama camp and details that perhaps need to be confirmed.
However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya. While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change:”), who was running for President.
Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics,”(“Walking The World Stage” Newsweek 9/11/06) .
Obama used his elected office—and taxpayers’ dollars—to support Kenya’s Odinga, a violent Marxist thug who made a pact with the Muslims to institute Sharia (Islamic law) although only 10 percent of Kenyans are Muslim. Odinga’s followers killed some 1000 people and burned 800 Christian churches, including one with 50 people, many of them children inside.
During a KTN interview in Kenya, Odinga admitted signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Muslims, but said the MOU did not include anything regarding Sharia because he’s an Anglican. Listen to him…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4385739074127652954
However, Odinga LIED. In the MOU Odinga signed, he promised to “within 1 year facilitate the establishment of a Sharia court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters, to order primary schools to conduct daily Madrassa classes, to impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades…” Read the MOU… https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/MOU_between_Ralia_Odinga_and_Muslims.pdf
Why is the U.S. media so desperate to support Obama as to hide important information Americans have the right to know? In their efforts to keep Americans ignorant of negative information about Obama, the U.S. mainstream media has lost all credibility.