I cannot wait until we bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and get Hannity off the fucking air

[Hugabear]

I caught the intro to Hannity's radio program today - the very first thing I heard was "THE RADICALS HAVE WON" followed by a Rev. Jeremiah Wright clip. Hannity is a fucking POS,a hate-mongering asshole. I couldn't even stomach the thought of listening to what he had to say today. I can just imagine that he'll be trying to whip up an atmosphere of hatred, maybe bringing his neo-Nazi buddy Hal Turner on to discuss Obama's presidency.

If there were an "Axis of Evil" on the airwaves, I'd have to say that would be Hannity, Savage, and Coulter. The airwaves would be so much better off without them and their ilk spreading their hatred and bile. Like Schumer said recently, if the FCC can keep cursing and nekkidness off the airwaves, then we can keep this garbage off as well.

[Ian David]

1. The only time I want to see them on the TV is when Rachel Maddow has them on HER show to abuse them.

There is, after all, only so much humiliation Pat Buchannan can take before he throws himself off an overpass.

[percussivemadness]

2. Hannity needs to be arrested and tried for treason....

[Hugabear]

3. God forbid, but if anything happens to Obama, we need to hold these fuckers responsible

There have already been a couple of ill-conceived neo-Nazi attempts on Obama. You know damned well that with the likes of Hannity whipping up the hatred on a daily basis, it's only going to encourage them to keep trying.

Hell, we saw how conservative talk radio helped influence Timothy McVeigh, with their non-stop anti-government propaganda. Now take all that hatred, multiply it tenfold, and focus it on a single person - and add the racial element to it.

[NYCGirl]

4. That means no Olbermann, no Maddow, no Randi Rhodes, no Mike Malloy,

etc. Do you really want that?

[Hugabear]

9. I don't think cable networks would be affected, nor would satellite radio

Since you have to pay for those services, they wouldn't be affected. Pretty sure that the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to free, over-the-air broadcasts.

[Richardo]

12. This is true.

[NYCGirl]

13. The people I mentioned are on terrestial radio, not satellite. Hannity et al are

on cable networks.

[Richardo]

5. Obama is not inclined to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

He's more likely to revisit media ownership regulations.

And the Fairness Doctrine does not mean 'anyone who's mean to Democrats is kicked off the air'.

[Hugabear]

7. No, but I've heard some conservative hosts say they'd retire if it returned

It would mean that Hannity, Limbaugh, Boortz, etc would have to offer equal time to opposing points of view. It would mean that they would no longer control their shows. I've heard Boortz say several times that he would retire that if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated.

[Richardo]

11. It doesn't mean that at all. It states that the broadcaster has to give equal time.

Not the show.

[BOSSHOG]

14. I suggest you study up on the fairness doctrine

a little more to see its true meaning and intent. What limbaugh, hannity, boortz et al say about the fairness doctrine is only spewed to their lemmings to foment dissent against a very useful tool for information dissemination. Boortz says he would "retire" to piss off the ignorant trash who listen to his garbage and have them hate the fairness doctrine. I don't want right wing trash off the public airwaves, I want them responsible for their broadcasts, thats far different then your original post. Holding a conservative responsible for anything is like RAID to a cockroach.

[leftofthedial]

6. has anyone (other that us or Dennis Kucinich) proposed bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?

I haven't heard ANY discussion of that.

[Hugabear]

8. Chuck Schumer recently spoke out in favor of it

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/05/inside-politics-64800309/

[leftofthedial]

17. cool!

Here's hoping!

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I'd love for there to be a new Fairness Doctrine. However without a

SCOTUS that leans liberal, when they start hearing the case on how the FD infringes on freedom of speech we might well lose the ruling.

[BOSSHOG]

15. You are always the voice of reason My Friend

Unfortunately for our side, all the "kids" on the supreme court are neanderthals. Irony. And all those with a reason to retire or most likely to die are on our side, the near term result, a net gain of zero. As one with a journalism degree, a former practitioner of the trade and a student of the subject, I find no correlation between the fairness doctrine and the first amendment. But I do not have Antonin's brilliant mind.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Ah, well my brain zipped straight to the Free Speech argument actually because I am a Green. Every

time I have argued for mandatory public financing/zero outside funding of elections I have been torn down repeatedly for trying to interfere with people's political free speech rights. So it occurred to me quite quickly that someone could make that argument against the FD too. LOL

Anyway, back to the SCOTUS, I am really hoping that Obama picks some good people to replace our elders there. They might not be as liberal as I would want but as long as they will put up an opposition to the conservative justices then I am happy.

[madrchsod]

18. it`s all about advertising dollars

if there is a demand for liberal radio then the advertisers will put their money down. big ed said today is that progressives need to buy radio stations and put on good programing.

820am in chicago is a daylight station so the owners bought three fm stations that surround chicago so they can broadcast Rachel,ron reagan,and bill press. from 8 till 5 they broadcast dance club music...

Saturday they have varied programming plus local news guys that the big stations "retired".

we need the stations,advertisers,and listeners to make the fairness doctrine a mute point

[NWPatriot]

19. It's been tried...

Remember "Air America"?

The problem with AA was despite it's lineup, no one wanted to listen to it. It was nothing but hour after hour of "Bush sucks!", "We hate Bush!", "Bush is the cause of all the world's problems!". People got sick of it after a while.

If liberal radio could make a product that was A)listenable, B)informative, and C)fun, people would listen. What AA put forth was screaming vitriol, mixed with boring discussions. I tried to listen to it, but I couldn't. It felt like all the hosts had their sense of humor surgically removed.

Despite what Rush, Hannity, Boortz, Medved, et.al. stand for, they try to make it fun. If it were nothing but screed, invective, and tirades, they wouldn't have the audiences they do. They make fun of themselves, which breaks up the tension. No one wants to hear stuff that's going to put them on edge for hours and hours at a time. If you can get past the message (difficult, I know) and listen to how they do their programs, you'll find they are all having fun. When the host is having fun, the listener picks up on it, and wants to keep listening. (I did 9 years in radio, so I know from whence I speak.)

If liberal radio would do this, a Fairness Doctrine wouldn't be needed, because a viable alternative to 'their' kind of talk radio would be a sought-after...and profitable...commodity.