MyFacedotcom said:
The beginning of this post, my thread starter was edited. Ah well, guess whomever did that is voting for Obama. I told you in my last post that I don't have 'documentation' proving anything. Look, DUDE, all I am asking is what talk radio hosts have to say. What do radio talk show hosts think about this idea of the fairness doctrine returning,
O.K. I see your point. The board editors, playing their role as monitors and referees, took something out of your original post. My experience is that they are pretty even handed. I doubt they were taking sides. I suspect whatever they took out was a bit more rowdy than you realize. Maybe you live in a rowdy neighborhood that would normally use the terms the editor objected to. Let it pass. Find a slightly more acceptable way to say your thing.
Overall, "the board" taken as a whole is far from dead. (Maybe the Tucson topic is slow. I'll look back through it a bit later.) And one of the hot items keeping a number of topics fed is this report that a certain presidential candidate is hell-bent on creating a very un-fair fairness doctrine. It is a very volatile topic, and most of us are not capable of keeping a conversation on that topic alive without finding ourselves transferred to the "Take It Outside" topic.
I apologize if my participation has prevented you from having a conversation about the position that talk show hosts have about this issue. I managed a station back when the original Fairness Doctrine was in effect. I did not find it to be nearly the pain in the you-know-what that people are claiming today. However, as a student of current day politics and legislative practices, I think it is fair to say that whatever might be implemented today and called a Fairness Doctrine will likely be very, very different, and is likely to have a lot of features that a lot of people, including me, will not like.
Pursue your original question if you like, but the conversation that I am waiting to see is one where people offer some logical explanation of what group of power-brokers can put together enough juice to get a new Fairness Doctrine in place. And considering who you think will be the supporters, and the compromises they will have to make to assemble enough "juice" to get it done, what will the new doctrine contain?
Have a good conversation my friend.
