• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What's going on with Ron Paul and FOX News?

Red Robin

Well-known member
Ron Paul is a joke. The Klan here is supporting Paul but other than that, I know of no one that thinks he'd be a viable candidate against obama. I actually like a small portion of the things he stands for but the majority of what he says is goofy. I'm sure some bigfoot sighter along with those that think we're hiding aliens at Roswell and probably some of the drug induced 60's crowd are also behind his campaign. He has no chance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve, Steve, Steve....

1. The airways belong to us, but radio and TV stations "lease" them. Try to put your cattle on land you've leased to someone else and you'll see who has the rights to that land. It's the same with our airways. FOX can put whoever they want in their debate unless someone stops them. And just who would do that, you think? Not the Republican establishment that wants Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee to just go away.

2. The debate is being co-sponsored by a NH newspaper and the NH Republican party. Both of them are negotiating with FOX to let Ron Paul into the debate. The Republican party says he has a lot of support in NH and they should be able to see him on the stage with the other candidates.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Ron Paul is a joke. The Klan here is supporting Paul but other than that, I know of no one that thinks he'd be a viable candidate against obama. I actually like a small portion of the things he stands for but the majority of what he says is goofy. I'm sure some bigfoot sighter along with those that think we're hiding aliens at Roswell and probably some of the drug induced 60's crowd are also behind his campaign. He has no chance.

:D :D He won more votes in Iowa than Rudy and Duncan Hunter. He's raised more money than the two highest vote getters in NH, Mitt and Huckabee. You do live in a limited world, so maybe....possibly, someone (lots of someones apparently) that you don't know support him. His fundraising is not from any one group or person or corporation, it's from thousands of small donors. BTW, just who are you supporting? Hollywood Fred?

Go, Ron Paul! Don't let these people stop you. A third party candidacy will surely sweep you into the White House. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
ff
1. The airways belong to us, but radio and TV stations "lease" them.

Let me try again...


Radio and television, however, use a precious resource that belongs to all of us: the airwaves. and the broadcasters lease the spectrum from us, the American people. Because they are using a scarce resource, they have to abide by the terms of the lease; those terms are administered by the FCC. One of those terms is that the media can't use our resources to support one political candidate without giving others equal time.

I hope you spend more time reading your leases then you did my response.. :roll: :roll:
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Texan said:
The fact that Duncan Hunter is also left out should put to rest the talk about Fox News being a conservative media outlet. If they were really conservative, they would be promoting Hunter.

from grassfire:

ABC and Fox News Channel have narrowed the field of presidential candidates invited to debate this weekend leading into the New Hampshire primary by closing the doors on Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter.

According to numerous reports, the decision was made due to limited space in its studio--a bus. As a result they invited only those candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls.

Is this fair to someone like Ron Paul who has set fund-raising records, and is gaining great momentum while other candidates are fading? I suggest not.

As a voting American, I'm upset at this decision. No, I don't support Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter or any other candidate. Frankly we are too early in the process, and everything is too liquid to make such an important decision.

But isn't that the idea of these debates? Giving citizens a portal to listen and see the candidates--all the candidates, their ideologies and philosophies away from media spin?

I'm outraged by Fox News Channel and ABC's decision,
and I'm urging you to take action with me by calling and emailing each of these news organizations to express your outrage.

Fox News Channel: (212) 301-3000 or (888)-369-4762,
send email to: [email protected]

ABC: (212) 456-7777, to send email, go to www.abc.com, scroll to bottom of page and click on "Contact Us"

Again, I am not supporting Paul, Hunter or anyone else at this point. But I think it’s critically important that the media not silence any of the candidates.

It is ironic that Joseph Farah of WorldNet Daily suggests the move "is a very bad decision for a cable news channel whose slogan is 'fair and balanced.'"

Whether you support these two candidates or not, please take immediate action by calling, and emailing Fox News Channel and ABC, voicing your disapproval of their bias. Urge each to change their decision and allow these men to debate the issues facing our nation. Americans need to hear what they have to say.



I sent in my emails to Fox News and ABC. I'm sick and tired of the media determining who we get to listen to, especially when we are in a presidential election!!!! :mad: :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hanta Yo said:
Texan said:
The fact that Duncan Hunter is also left out should put to rest the talk about Fox News being a conservative media outlet. If they were really conservative, they would be promoting Hunter.


I sent in my emails to Fox News and ABC. I'm sick and tired of the media determining who we get to listen to, especially when we are in a presidential election!!!! :mad: :mad:

Just sent them an earfull too :wink:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Hanta Yo said:
Texan said:
The fact that Duncan Hunter is also left out should put to rest the talk about Fox News being a conservative media outlet. If they were really conservative, they would be promoting Hunter.


I sent in my emails to Fox News and ABC. I'm sick and tired of the media determining who we get to listen to, especially when we are in a presidential election!!!! :mad: :mad:

Just sent them an earfull too :wink:

What is the cut off of people then? Who decides when enough is enough and it is time to get down to the serious candidates and quit wasting our time with those just wanting some free air time?

I might be a little confused but isn't Fox news a cable news channel? They do not broadcast in the free airways? I know we can not get them over the airways around here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Hanta Yo said:
I sent in my emails to Fox News and ABC. I'm sick and tired of the media determining who we get to listen to, especially when we are in a presidential election!!!! :mad: :mad:

Just sent them an earfull too :wink:

What is the cut off of people then? Who decides when enough is enough and it is time to get down to the serious candidates and quit wasting our time with those just wanting some free air time?

I might be a little confused but isn't Fox news a cable news channel? They do not broadcast in the free airways? I know we can not get them over the airways around here.

But what was their criteria? Paul beat Gagliano hands down in Iowa...Should they kick Gagliano out :???: Paul has received more campaign donated money than many of the candidates including Romney...Should they kick Romney out :???:

I don't think elitist media moguls should be deciding who should or should not be heard in political debates...Both Hunter and Paul have been recognized all thru the campaign as viable candidates- and still are by their parties- and with Paul his following has even been increasing..

Has either one got a chance--probably not-- but they do have a chance of influencing their parties and the direction the candidates take- and what may happen at the Republican convention....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Just sent them an earfull too :wink:

What is the cut off of people then? Who decides when enough is enough and it is time to get down to the serious candidates and quit wasting our time with those just wanting some free air time?

I might be a little confused but isn't Fox news a cable news channel? They do not broadcast in the free airways? I know we can not get them over the airways around here.

But what was their criteria? Paul beat Gagliano hands down in Iowa...Should they kick Gagliano out :???: Paul has received more campaign donated money than many of the candidates including Romney...Should they kick Romney out :???:

I don't think elitist media moguls should be deciding who should or should not be heard in political debates...Both Hunter and Paul have been recognized all thru the campaign as viable candidates- and still are by their parties- and with Paul his following has even been increasing..

Has either one got a chance--probably not-- but they do have a chance of influencing their parties and the direction the candidates take- and what may happen at the Republican convention....

I can see what you are saying due to how Paul did in Iowa he probably earned a spot in debate, I saw on Fox one of their own people was challenging another on that issue, It think it was that Gretchen ??? woman. I am probably looking at it from selfish stand point, I am tired of hearing all of them already let alone those with basically no chance. I like to see them culled asap.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
The demo coverage by the media probably rates about 6 to 1 locally over the Reps. We've heard about obama and hillary daily for months.

Edit: We also get a daily account of Brittany Spears. The've showed her being loaded into the ambulance over and over the last 24 hours. Enough of that and enough of Hillary.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
ff
1. The airways belong to us, but radio and TV stations "lease" them.

Let me try again...


Radio and television, however, use a precious resource that belongs to all of us: the airwaves. and the broadcasters lease the spectrum from us, the American people. Because they are using a scarce resource, they have to abide by the terms of the lease; those terms are administered by the FCC. One of those terms is that the media can't use our resources to support one political candidate without giving others equal time.

I hope you spend more time reading your leases then you did my response.. :roll: :roll:

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Or do you know you're wrong and that's why you don't post a link?

End of Fairness Doctrine
In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[9]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).

In 1986, Appeals Court Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.

Congress has been working on re-instating the Fairness Doctrine in a manner that can pass muster with the Supreme Court. But right now, it's pretty much up to the individual station to monitor themselves. :roll: We've seen the biggest consolidation of media under the Bush Administration ever. [/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
History of the Fairness Doctrine
You may remember hearing about Sinclair Broadcast Group in October 2004. They attracted attention from other media outlets when they announced plans to air STOLEN HONOR, described by some as an "anti-Kerry documentary." Ultimately, the documentary was not aired, as critics called for balance from Sinclair by way of programming that showed the other side of the story, calling on a principle called the "fairness doctrine." While this doctrine is no longer enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it hasn't faded from public discourse. What is the history behind this doctrine?

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, called for stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates running for office. (Learn about the history of televised presidential debates.) The idea was to ensure even-handedness in a time when available frequencies were limited. This federal law did not apply to news programs, interviews, and documentaries. During the 1940s, stations were prevented by the FCC's "Mayflower Doctrine" from editorializing, but by the end of the decade, the ban had softened to allow editorializing only if other points of view were also aired to balance those of the station.

In 1949, the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as "public trustees" and, as such, responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on these issues.

Later, in 1967, two corollary doctrines were added. The first was the political editorial rule, requiring that if a station editorialized either for or against a candidate for public office, the station had to notify the disfavored candidate within 24 hours and allow him/her to reply to the editorial; the second was the personal attack rule, which states that when a person or group's character or integrity is impugned during the discussion of a controversial issue, the station must notify the person within one week, and offer a reasonable time for response.

By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.

As this was happening, Congress passed a bill to make the fairness doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. In 2000, when the FCC failed to justify the two remaining corollary rules, the political editorial rule and the personal attack rule were repealed.

Efforts to resurrect the fairness doctrine have come up again and again before Congress, but no bill has yet been passed. Read a conversation between Bill Moyers and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter about her latest effort, The MEDIA Act.

For further research, visit our FCC and media deregulation resources.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fairness.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Or do you know you're wrong and that's why you don't post a link?


The Equal-time rule is sometimes confused with the Fairness Doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule


The "fairness doctrine and equal access or equal time" are separate issues... don't you liberals ever tire of being so confused?

here is one recent example... of Democratic candidates trying to get equal time enforced...
NEW YORK - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC on Friday after ABC News excluded him, fellow Democrat Mike Gravel and Republican Duncan Hunter from its prime-time debates on Saturday.

Kucinich argued that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate and noted that ABC's parent Walt Disney Co. had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited.

"ABC should not be the first primary," the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.


oh and here is your link..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080105/ap_on_el_pr/abc_debate

and another older example... of Democratic candidates trying to get it enforced...
Sinclair is calling the documentary a special news event, which could exempt it from FCC equal time provisions.
The Democratic Party and 20 senators have sent letters to the Federal Communications Commission in protest. The senators' letters said in part, to allow a broadcasting company to air such a blatantly partisan attack in lieu of regular programming and to classify that attack as news programming, as has been suggested, would violate the spirit and we think the text of current law and regulation.

but most importantly...


EQUAL TIME RULE

U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule

It is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the "golden rule." 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.

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

and if that is not enough equal time is covered under federal campaign laws... here is another recent example..

Federal campaign law requires broadcasters to give all candidates equal time on the airwaves. ,...
The "equal-time provision, enforced by the Federal communications Commission, has been a staple of political campaigning for decades. Its primary goal is to make sure that candidates cannot be frozen out of crucial television time for their campaign commercials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802174.html

and no I never tire of proving liberals wrong...
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I myself think all debates should be on PBS stations with equal time to each candidate regardless of political party.

I myself am sick of Hitlary and Gagliuani but because the MSM has chosen these candidates they keep trying to push them onto the public.
 

Steve

Well-known member
MoGal
I myself think all debates should be on PBS stations with equal time to each candidate regardless of political party.

I myself am sick of Hitlary and Gagliuani but because the MSM has chosen these candidates they keep trying to push them onto the public.

I also would like to see fair debates,..and am also tired of the "top tier" candidates anointed by the liberal media,... but...

MoGal
I myself think all debates should be on PBS stations with equal time to each candidate regardless of political party.

on Ultra Liberal PBS? :roll: I can see a repeat of the CNN debate in that the liberal questioners would use the questions to make liberal political statements...

but then again it would be better then watching what PBS has on now...
 

Latest posts

Top