As to the following: 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.
I guess IF one’s ethos is bottom line based, most of what you taut Chris is valid. Herein lies the primary issue as far as I can tell. On Dec 1, 8:53 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-is... > > >http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053 > > >http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/200... > > > 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 > > ... > > 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
