Louise Slaughter - Fairness Act

[OnTheRocks]

I caught a little bit of the local Rochester radio guy Bob Lonsberry talking about this so I looked it up.

 

Fairness Act

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I caught a little bit of the local Rochester radio guy Bob Lonsberry talking about this so I looked it up. 

 

Fairness Act

600387[/snapback]

 

What a load of horse sh--. Aside from the practical matter of deciding what is and isn't "fair", free speech does not mean one is automatically entitled to be provided a bully pulpit.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

What a load of horse sh--.  Aside from the practical matter of deciding what is and isn't "fair", free speech does not mean one is automatically entitled to be provided a bully pulpit.

600400[/snapback]

I am inclined to agree with you. It is incumbent on the other side to work hard enough to get its voice heard, besides there are plenty of other avenues beside radio or TV to reach out, the internet obviously provides that opportunity.

 

However, if I hear one more rightwinger whine about liberal media, I am going to puke on them. Oh, there are a few liberal media icons left, but the right dominates the airwaves, print and cable now.

 

There is no disputing this. Unfortunately, moderate fact based journalism is totally gone, we are back to the mud raking of the 1930s, but from a humour standpoint, this era is actually much more interesting even if it is a joke.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I am inclined to agree with you.

600430[/snapback]

 

But, but, but...I'm severely mentally retarded from my weed smoking! How can you agree with me?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

But, but, but...I'm severely mentally retarded from my weed smoking!  How can you agree with me? 

600445[/snapback]

 

Don't know, guess I am not just a knee jerk liberal, just a jerk sometimes.

[Ned Flanders]

Don't know what Lonsberry's beef was, but Slaughter's rant seems very political in nature and thus, in violation of the House rules. If this was on her campaign site, so what...but it's on the taxpayer-funded .gov official site.

 

Content

The content of a Member’s Web site:

 

1. May not include personal, political, or campaign information.

 

2. May not be directly linked or refer to Web sites created or operated by a campaign or any campaign related entity including political parties and campaign committees.

 

3. May not include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member’s position.

 

4. May not generate, circulate, solicit, or encourage signing petitions.

 

5. May not include any advertisement for any private individual, firm, or corporation, or imply in any manner that the government endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity,

 

Link

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Don't know, guess I am not just a knee jerk liberal, just a jerk sometimes.

600461[/snapback]

 

And here I was going to point out that, in agreeing with a severely mentally retarded toker or calling someone a severely mentally retarded toker that you agree with, either way you were an idiot.

 

But "jerk" was so much more concise.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Don't know what Lonsberry's beef was, but Slaughter's rant seems very political in nature and thus, in violation of the House rules.  If this was on her campaign site, so what...but it's on the taxpayer-funded .gov official site.

 

Content

The content of a Member’s Web site:

 

1. May not include personal, political, or campaign information.

 

2. May not be directly linked or refer to Web sites created or operated by a campaign or any campaign related entity including political parties and campaign committees.

 

3. May not include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member’s position.

 

4. May not generate, circulate, solicit, or encourage signing petitions.

 

5. May not include any advertisement for any private individual, firm, or corporation, or imply in any manner that the government endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity,

 

Link

600462[/snapback]

 

 

Question, if this is on her official public site and not on her campaign site, how does it specifically violate the rules of this group. It is not campaign related and if deemed so would infact be a violation of House rules, let alone this site? Unless you are stating that it falls under soliciting support for a members position? Just a question, not a judgement as to the arguement>

[bobblehead]

I am inclined to agree with you.  It is incumbent on the other side to work hard enough to get its voice heard, besides there are plenty of other avenues beside radio or TV to reach out, the internet obviously provides that opportunity.

 

However, if I hear one more rightwinger whine about liberal media, I am going to puke on them.  Oh, there are a few liberal media icons left, but the right dominates the airwaves, print and cable now.

 

There is no disputing this.  Unfortunately, moderate fact based journalism is totally gone, we are back to the mud raking of the 1930s, but from a humour standpoint, this era is actually much more interesting even if it is a joke.

600430[/snapback]

 

 

I think what is as equally important as the freedom to speak is the freedom to not speak. The freedom of not having to speak what is not your view is as important as the freedom to speak your view.

 

 

I am troubled, though when it's the low-rent pieces of sh-- in this world like Rush Limbaugh and Bob Lonsberry that are the champions of free speech in cases like this, and it's the supposed defenders of civil rights that are on the other side. I guess that's part of the price of freedom.

 

The right-wing media bias today is unquestioned, but I see it more as a case of "scoreboard!" than anything else. They put in 30 years of hard work getting to where they are now, where 'Liberal' is a four letter word in the mainstream media.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I think what is as equally important as the freedom to speak is the freedom to not speak.  The freedom of not having to speak what is not your view is as important as the freedom to speak your view.

I am troubled, though when it's the low-rent pieces of sh-- in this world like Rush Limbaugh and Bob Lonsberry that are the champions of free speech in cases like this, and it's the supposed defenders of civil rights that are on the other side.  I guess that's part of the price of freedom.

 

The right-wing media bias today is unquestioned, but I see it more as a case of "scoreboard!" than anything else.  They put in 30 years of hard work getting to where they are now, where 'Liberal' is a four letter word in the mainstream media.

600473[/snapback]

 

Yep, Liberals took all their hardwork for granted and rested on their laurels. They are just now reopening their eyes and taking action. But they have a longway to go and many fights to re-battle.

[OnTheRocks]

Don't know what Lonsberry's beef was,

600462[/snapback]

 

 

no big suprise......Lonsberry was saying this is a bad deal.

[IowaBill]

And here I was going to point out that, in agreeing with a severely mentally retarded toker or calling someone a severely mentally retarded toker that you agree with, either way you were an idiot. 

 

But "jerk" was so much more concise. 

600465[/snapback]

 

Maybe all people are "jerks" instead of "stupid". I am not sure if that is all that more concise, however.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think what is as equally important as the freedom to speak is the freedom to not speak.  The freedom of not having to speak what is not your view is as important as the freedom to speak your view.

I am troubled, though when it's the low-rent pieces of sh-- in this world like Rush Limbaugh and Bob Lonsberry that are the champions of free speech in cases like this, and it's the supposed defenders of civil rights that are on the other side.  I guess that's part of the price of freedom.

 

The right-wing media bias today is unquestioned, but I see it more as a case of "scoreboard!" than anything else.  They put in 30 years of hard work getting to where they are now, where 'Liberal' is a four letter word in the mainstream media.

600473[/snapback]

 

Boo frickin hoo.

 

For DECADES since the McCarthy era, the media was SO beyond liberal that it was repugnant. And theys till are, despite your supposed "Facts". Why? Because 90+% of the press is composed of graduates of left-leaning journalism schools.

 

The ownership may be conservative. But the actual voices sure aren't. Unless you categorize Lauer, Couric, Schieffer, and that dolt who nearly got killed in Iraq as "conservatives".

[bobblehead]

Boo frickin hoo.

 

For DECADES since the McCarthy era, the media was SO beyond liberal that it was repugnant. And theys till are, despite your supposed "Facts". Why? Because 90+% of the press is composed of graduates of left-leaning journalism schools.

 

The ownership may be conservative. But the actual voices sure aren't. Unless you categorize Lauer, Couric, Schieffer, and that dolt who nearly got killed in Iraq as "conservatives".

600486[/snapback]

 

 

I never said it was a bad thing...Just calling it as it is.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I never said it was a bad thing...Just calling it as it is.

600496[/snapback]

 

it IS?

 

Well, I must be living under a rock or something.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

no big suprise......Lonsberry was saying this is a bad deal.

600483[/snapback]

 

Sure...it's dumb. The only possible reason for it would be to silence and harrass ones critics, or political opposition. That's how the Fainess Doctrine was used in the past, and partly why it is gone.

[Ned Flanders]

Question, if this is on her official public site and not on her campaign site, how does it specifically violate the rules of this group.  It is not campaign related and if deemed so would infact be a violation of House rules, let alone this site? Unless you are stating that it falls under soliciting support for a members position?  Just a question, not a judgement as to the arguement>

600471[/snapback]

Well, don't you think it's a "political" message? (I know, I know....EVERYTHING these clowns do is a political message)

 

I think it's clear, no matter how well-disguised, this type of message belongs on the DCCC site...not the Member's official web page.

[RkFast]

From what I was taught, The Fairness Doctrine (Equal Time) was for when a political candidate was brought in for an interview, a media outlet (TV or radio) had to offer a chance to the opposition to retort later. That is, get "equal (air) time". It really had to nothing to do with the leanings of the media in the aggregate.

 

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/...equaltimeru.htm

 

The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

From what I was taught, The Fairness Doctrine (Equal Time) was for when a political candidate was brought in for an interview, a media outlet (TV or radio) had to offer a chance to the opposition to retort later. That is, get "equal (air) time". It really had to nothing to do with the leanings of the media in the aggregate.

 

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/...equaltimeru.htm

 

The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office.

600542[/snapback]

 

Exactly. That's what it was supposed to be about. There was a time when people in this country could only get one or two TV stations, or just a couple of radio stations. Control of the airwaves was a concern. One could argue that there were more radio stations, even back then, than there were newspapers, but somehow the equal time thing only affected broadcasting. It's different today. Our choices for news and opinion are large. Cable, Internet, ETC. We even have satellite radio now. She just wants to squash the pundits, BECAUSE most of them are conservative in ther views, not liberal, and they don't help the democratic party.

 

Excellent point about the Communications Act of 1996.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Well, don't you think it's a "political" message?  (I know, I know....EVERYTHING these clowns do is a political message)

 

I think it's clear, no matter how well-disguised, this type of message belongs on the DCCC site...not the Member's official web page.

600512[/snapback]

So is this whole discussion, so what, but it is part of the Congresswoman's official duties under the speach and debate clause of the Constitution, not as part of her campaign, which in today's day and age is about fundraising. Didn't see any fundraising info attached.

 

As far as DCCC, I haven't checked, but unlikely, Dems are not the organized. I could see it if were the RNC. Besides if were DCCC, it would not be allowed on her Public website.

 

Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to create something like that, just a young underpaid staffer who is web savy and has a digital tape deck or video camera. Pretty simple actually.