Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=Bill Keegan;9237537]You'll note, when you read the story, that the Republicans goal is to point out where they believe stories are incorrect, inaccurate or skewed, and to create and to "encourage the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession and to provide the American people with the facts, not tell them what to think.”[/quote]Lol, they'd put Faux out of business.
"The media" doesnt have a single profession. It has hundreds. Maybe "the Republicans" meant journalists when they spoke of "the higheststandards of their profession" (surely they werent thinking of typesetters and audio engineers). Could they have meant Conservative Commentators?
This is far worse than that failed Fairness Doctrine -- proposed by whom, btw, Debbie Stabenow? -- which stressed fairness -- equal time. That's bad too, but do you see the creeping horror of what Lamar Smith has in mind?
You'll note, when you read the story, that the Republicans goal is to point out where they believe stories are incorrect, inaccurate or skewed, and to create and to "encourage the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession and to provide the American people with the facts, not tell them what to think.”[/quote]Lol, they'd put Faux out of business.
"The media" doesnt have a single profession. It has hundreds. Maybe "the Republicans" meant journalists when they spoke of "the higheststandards of their profession" (surely they werent thinking of typesetters and audio engineers). Could they have meant Conservative Commentators?
This is far worse than that failed Fairness Doctrine -- proposed by whom, btw, Debbie Stabenow? -- which stressed fairness -- equal time. That's bad too, but do you see the creeping horror of what Lamar Smith has in mind?
You can try to dilute the issue all you want with cute tricks like suggesting that typesetters are part of the story. We both know that we're talking about the people who decide what content is aired and how.
Creeping horror? Of pointing out incorrectly reported news? Yeah, that's treacherous. Of writing opinion letters to newspaper editors? Ohh, yes, horrific. Much worse that taking away a broadcasters license if they don't air what you think they should.
The Fairness doctrine, and ways to accomplish the goals of the fairness doctrine without actually reinstating it, have been in discussions all over the place for quite a while now. In 2007, a senior adviser to Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it." And they may be taking a more stealthy approach now, trying to avoid the name Fairness Doctrine. Senator Durbin sponsored a tack on amendment to a bill on giving voting rights to Washington DC. The amendment had nothing to do with DC. Here's part of what it said: "SEC.9 FCC Authorities. (a) Clarification of General Powers. – Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
SEC.303B. Clarification of General Powers. (a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required – The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest."
Want to see the beginning of a creeping horror? Read this. Speaker Pelosi Backs Senate Amendment to Regulate Talk Radio
(http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44588 - broken link)
Do you also feel that way about equal rights to all, even gays.
The First Amendment provides special rights for gays?
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
no reason in the world to do this, epecially from religious people claiming to be non religious, the earth religion people and the agnostics are in fact religious.
If there was an petition/law that you could sign/vote on that would suppress religious activities and make them only allowed to be practiced in a church or the privacy of your their own home or private property but not in the general public, would you? Why?
nope, you have heard of freedom of religion havent you?
our country is based upon those freedoms, even if some do not like to recognize them.
The First Amendment provides special rights for gays?
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
yes!!!! i hate waiting for the train or the bus and hearing some evangelical freak blab on and on about damnation and salvation over a bullhorn or speaker system!!!
if i wanted religious indoctrination i would go to a church.
keep that in church. at your house. in your prayer group. at service.
AND DONT COME KNOCKIN ON MY DOOR!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
