Somehow, Orn, publishing three links, the second two of which are opinion pieces from Leftists, hardly seems like "the REAL story of the end of the fairness doctrine"...it seems like the left leaning view of the end of the fairness doctrine, which you agree with and espouse. Fair enough. Here's another:
The Fairness Doctrine was unenforced by the FCC due to high pressure from broadcast companies who lost a bundle on Liberal radio. Talk radio is traditionally a more right wing venue (think older conservatives, as opposed to younger liberals more likely to communicate in modern formats, such as the internet). Being forced to air liberal content was causing the vast majority of radio broadcasting firms to lose money, as their core audience turned off the radio when liberal shows aired. The one major liberal/progressive radio network couldn't turn a profit, and was forced into bankruptcy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Media <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Media>The push for the fairness doctrine merely tries to shove a countering viewpoint to an unaccepting crowd, causing financial losses to the companies forced to do so. It punishes companies for broadcasting popular and profitable content to their core audience. On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > “…a biased media…” – rigs > > The real story of the end of the fairness doctrine… > > > http://www.indyaccess.org/telecommunications-and-media-reform/2006-issues/end-of-fairness-doctrine/ > > http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053 > > > http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/09/whos_afraid_of_the_big_bad_fairness_doctrine/ > > > On Dec 1, 5:59 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Clinton's distortion of truth started long before that- try > > Jennifer Flowers and that "60 Minutes" interview. The voters started > > voting for "hunks" and candidates they could "relate" to instead of > > administrators. Nothing has changed in this past election when you > > have white op/ed writers- Judith Warner-NYTimes- dreaming about a > > shower with Obama- lol- thrills running up Chris Matthew's leg, Oprah > > working the whites in Iowa, a biased media. The lack of substantial > > candidates is the real problem. Like cream, scum rises to the top. > > > > On Dec 1, 7:10 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Your so totally biased in your viewpoint Don. > > > > > You know that an extraordinary amount of money was spent trying to > > > "get Clinton". The special prosecutor remember? Whitewater? etc etc > > > etc etc. Years of attempted distortions and abuse of the legal system. > > > Finally they "got him" in one of the oldest traps in the books - its > > > called a honeypot - they trapped him with a woman. > > > > > Now you can tell this is true by reflecting on one point and one point > > > alone. What woman do you know, who after getting a cum stain on her > > > dress during a blow job, will, instead of rapidly getting it cleaned, > > > preserve the stain? What possibly would make her do that? There is > > > only one possible explanation. She wanted evidence. That was what she > > > was there for. This was an operation conducted by Linda Trip running > > > her operative Monica. > > > > > Now Clinton was trying to evade this massive trap and cornered tried > > > to evade with semantics under oath... so now you "got him" ... > > > suddenly you don't care about sex because you don't need it.... you > > > got him on perjury... or so you thought....you masked your shame in > > > your audacity... you went for impeachment... it was a "high crime > > > or..." Right? > > > > > I am not distorting here. This is the truth. A blind man could see it. > > > > > And you accuse *him* of distortion? Talk about taking a splinter out > > > of someone else's eye when you have a log in your own! > > > > > What you are saying is just such a complete distortion. You want to > > > see a liar or a bullshitter, guy? Just look in the mirror. The real > > > problem is the destruction of peoples lives that you have cost and the > > > weakening of the ideals we require to remain free. This stuff has had > > > consequences. Line the innocent dead up and drive by them in a car on > > > a highway and you will take hours to pass them. Many of them children. > > > But the worse has been the contamination of our ideals and the > > > prostitution of bravery. You should be ashamed of yourself and what > > > your "distortions" have caused. > > > > > ... and still it goes on.... > > > > > On Nov 30, 3:20 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > That was pretty cool. Not sure if you're implying Rummy is lying > here > > > > 'cause if that's your point I'm totally missing it. I remember the > > > > Glass Box. We had one at the local Jo Jo's which became a Denny's > > > > about ten years ago. It was fun to watch the kids try for the > stuffed > > > > monkey banging the cymbals together. The image is a good analogy for > > > > the global warmist's efforts to keep alive their failing 'science.' > > > > Keep chasing that monkey or dragon or whatever if you want to I say. > > > > It is wise to remember hope is a fragile thing. > > > > > > I think i just went Gabbyly enigmatic there. > > > > > > -Don > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld > > > > > Recent works by the secretary of defense. > > > > > > > By Hart SeelyPosted Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 1:03 PM ET > > > > > > > Rumsfeld's free-speaking verseSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld > is > > > > > an accomplished man. Not only is he guiding the war in Iraq, he has > > > > > been a pilot, a congressman, an ambassador, a businessman, and a > civil > > > > > servant. But few Americans know that he is also a poet. > > > > > > > Until now, the secretary's poetry has found only a small and > skeptical > > > > > audience: the Pentagon press corps. Every day, Rumsfeld regales > > > > > reporters with his jazzy, impromptu riffs. Few of them seem to > > > > > appreciate it. > > > > > > > But we should all be listening. Rumsfeld's poetry is paradoxical: > It > > > > > uses playful language to address the most somber subjects: war, > > > > > terrorism, mortality. Much of it is about indirection and evasion: > He > > > > > never faces his subjects head on but weaves away, letting > inversions > > > > > and repetitions confuse and beguile. His work, with its dedication > to > > > > > the fractured rhythms of the plainspoken vernacular, is reminiscent > of > > > > > William Carlos Williams'. Some readers may find that Rumsfeld's > gift > > > > > for offhand, quotidian pronouncements is as entrancing as Frank > > > > > O'Hara's. > > > > > > > And so Slate has compiled a collection of Rumsfeld's poems, > bringing > > > > > them to a wider public for the first time. The poems that follow > are > > > > > the exact words of the defense secretary, as taken from the > official > > > > > transcripts on the Defense Department Web site. > > > > > > > The Unknown > > > > > > > As we know, > > > > > There are known knowns. > > > > > There are things we know we know. > > > > > We also know > > > > > There are known unknowns. > > > > > That is to say > > > > > We know there are some things > > > > > We do not know. > > > > > But there are also unknown unknowns, > > > > > The ones we don't know > > > > > We don't know. > > > > > —Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing > > > > > > > Glass Box > > > > > > > You know, it's the old glass box at the— > > > > > At the gas station, > > > > > Where you're using those little things > > > > > Trying to pick up the prize, > > > > > And you can't find it. > > > > > It's— > > > > > And it's all these arms are going down in there, > > > > > And so you keep dropping it > > > > > And picking it up again and moving it, > > > > > But— > > > > > Some of you are probably too young to remember those— > > > > > Those glass boxes, > > > > > But— > > > > > But they used to have them > > > > > At all the gas stations > > > > > When I was a kid. > > > > > —Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing > > > > > > > A Confession > > > > > > > Once in a while, > > > > > I'm standing here, doing something. > > > > > And I think, > > > > > "What in the world am I doing here?" > > > > > It's a big surprise. > > > > > —May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times > > > > > > > Happenings > > > > > > > You're going to be told lots of things. > > > > > You get told things every day that don't happen. > > > > > It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't— > > > > > It's printed in the press. > > > > > The world thinks all these things happen. > > > > > They never happened. > > > > > Everyone's so eager to get the story > > > > > Before in fact the story's there > > > > > That the world is constantly being fed > > > > > Things that haven't happened. > > > > > All I can tell you is, > > > > > It hasn't happened. > > > > > It's going to happen. > > > > > —Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing > > > > > > > The Digital Revolution > > > > > > > Oh my goodness gracious, > > > > > What you can buy off the Internet > > > > > In terms of overhead photography! > > > > > A trained ape can know an awful lot > > > > > Of what is going on in this world, > > > > > Just by punching on his mouse > > > > > For a relatively modest cost! > > > > > —June 9, 2001, following European trip > > > > > > > The Situation > > > > > > > Things will not be necessarily continuous. > > > > > The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous > > > > > Ought not to be characterized as a pause. > > > > > There will be some things that people will see. > > > > > There will be some things that people won't see. > > > > > And life goes on. > > > > > —Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing > > > > > > > Clarity > > > > > > > I think what you'll find, > > > > > I think what you'll find is, > > > > > Whatever it is we do substantively, > > > > > There will be near-perfect clarity > > > > > As to what it is. > > > > > And it will be known, > > > > > And it will be known to the Congress, > > > > > And it will be known to you, > > > > > Probably before we decide it, > > > > > But it will be known. > > > > > —Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing > > > > > > >http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/ > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2:28 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> regarding claims about global warming: are they really liars? Or > > > > > > >> > mere bullshitters? > > > > > > >> A bit of both probably. Even the most egregious departures from > truth > > > > >> can, and often are, rationalized. Here's my personal favorite. > > > > > > >> "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if > he--if > > > > >> 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. > If > > > > >> it means there is none, that was a completely true > statement....Now, > > > > >> if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of > sexual > > > > >> relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the > > > > >> present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been > completely > > > > >> true." > > > > > > >> Chutzpah, ladies and gentlemen, has no limits. > > > > > > >> -Don > > > > > > >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Alan Wostenberg < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > On Nov 29, 7:58 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> We can bleat forever about the nature of truth. I generally > prefer a > > > > >> >> limited notion of truth and honesty against lies and deception. > > > > > > >> > "Truth" says Aristotle, "is saying of what is that it is, and of > what > > > > >> > is not that it is not". A liar, according to Mortimer Adler, is > one > > > > >> > who willfully displaces his ontological predicates: he says of > what is > > > > >> > that it is not, or of what is not that it is. You say people > lie and > > > > >> > deceive about "global warming". The first thing to know about > lying is > > > > >> > that it is not the same as speaking falsehood. The liar knows > he's > > > > >> > lying. This means a) he knows the truth b) he speaks otherwise > > > > > > >> > The the > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
