Posted on 02/14/2009 11:20:37 PM PST by Righting
DOBBS: Former President Bill Clinton today speaking out on balance in the media and calling back the Fairness Doctrine, the former president talking with radio talk show host Mario Solis Marsh (ph).
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOICE OF BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side. Because essentially, there's always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows. And let's face it, you know Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining, even when he's saying things that I think are ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Now, the former president calling for the Fairness Doctrine would only imply, of course, to broadcasters. It's interesting he's not calling for fairness or a Fairness Doctrine for "The New York Times," "The Washington Post", the "L.A. Times," or ABC News, CBS News, NBC News. Isn't that odd that he would only be interested in so-called fairness for radio?
Obviously as a radio talk show host, as an American citizen, as a journalist, you know I think the former president is out of his cotton picking mind and needs to go away on this issue and the sooner the better. This idea that the government would decide what is balanced broadcast and fair broadcasting is purely a censorship doctrine. There is no other way to look at it. Purely a censorship document and hopefully we won't get to a point that we'll have a central command economy and nation, anytime soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at transcripts.cnn.com ...
Dobbs, another useless RINO. Hey Mr. RINO, the Democratic Party is way over that way (looks west to see San Fransisco)
“cotton picking mind”?
Man, Lou doesn’t hesitate to tell you how he feels.
He is correct though...to say only radio...leaves people thinking that this is the only area to be “fixed”. If you toss the Fairness Doctrine onto the fire...most of us will readily identify NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, the AP, and dozens of other networks for issues. There will be 40,000 complaints per day, and we will have congressional meetings around the clock to explain why this network was hit but this one wasn’t.
I think the best fairness doctrine...is this little switch on your radio...you click it on, if you like the show, and you click it off, if you don’t. Thats mostly fair, and 100 percent balanced.
Agreed!
That’s the same mentality that got us in this mess. GWB is less evil than Gore or Kerry. McCain is less evil than Obama. This mentality creates the perfect breeding ground for RINOs.
Dobbs, another useless RINO. Hey Mr. RINO, the Democratic Party is way over that way (looks west to see San Fransisco)
_______________________________________
You make no sense. Dobbs is pointing out the “Unfairness” of the Unfairness Doctrine.
Exactly why I (posted) quoted him here on FR.
Dobbs was blasting Clinton, not agreeing with him. I’m unsure what his party affiliation is.
Likely it's an Obama/Ayers objective, and (impeached and disbarred) Bill Clinton agrees with the premise, so he's willing to carry out the assignment.
.
Dobbs’ opposition to illegal immigration and open borders has put him on the list of censorship.
Potok made the claim on “60 Minutes” that Dobbs was a fear monger and that “The impression you get [from watching his CNN program,] pretty strongly I think, day after day, is that sort of all 11 million illegal aliens are bringing leprosy, they’re bringing crime, they’re bringing all these terrible things to the United States.”
Potok said that Dobbs’ comments gives people “the go-ahead to say that, you know, ‘These are a group of rapists and disease-carrying people who are coming to, you know, essentially destroy the culture of this country.’”
Stahl quibbled with Dobbs about a claim that immigrants were responsible for bringing leprosy into the U.S., but the issue wasn’t really whether he got a fact right or wrong or even whether he was an “advocacy journalist.” The clear implication was that Dobbs was somehow encouraging hatred or violence against illegal aliens and was therefore guilty of “hate speech.” Potok served no other purpose than to imply that Dobbs was a Don Imus-type character, not worthy of being given air-time.
Dobbs:Also ahead illegal aliens suing an Arizona rancher who caught them on his property and Democrats killing one of the most effective programs to fight illegal immigration, we're going to be right back.
Dobbs is not giving up on the subject of Illegal Immigration.
Read before commenting
DOBBS:
Now, the former president calling for the Fairness Doctrine would only imply, of course, to broadcasters.
It’s interesting he’s not calling for fairness or a Fairness Doctrine for “The New York Times,” “The Washington Post”, the “L.A. Times,” or ABC News, CBS News, NBC News. Isn’t that odd that he would only be interested in so-called fairness for radio?
Obviously as a radio talk show host, as an American citizen, as a journalist, you know I think the former president is out of his cotton picking mind and needs to go away on this issue and the sooner the better.
This idea that the government would decide what is balanced broadcast and fair broadcasting is purely a censorship doctrine.
There is no other way to look at it. Purely a censorship document and hopefully we won’t get to a point that we’ll have a central command economy and nation, anytime soon.
Censorship Doctrine, that is what is would be.
If they attempt to do this, it should also apply to television so that the major MSM have to give equal time to alternate views.
Not sure what RINOs have to do with this discussion?
Trolling?
The “Censorship” Doctrine needs to become a household name, similar to the “Porkulous” Bill. Every time the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine is discussed, it should be countered with this or something similar.
Antonin Scalia used the same kind of argument against the restrictions of McCain-Feingold. You could restrict TV ads but every major newspaper is perfectly free to run as many editorials and articles as they wish against a given candidate, up to, and including, the day of the election.
Even if these boards start out as being dominated by conservatives (doubtful), their operating instructions would be to require a percentage of local presentation. If you make this on an hourly basis, you kill national presenters like Rush & others. Their advertising dollar value gets cut with their time on the air and the economics goes away. The Liberals would rather kill an entire industry than to tolerate informed dissent from the Right.
Dobbs is not a Republican, he's an Independent, therefore he can not be a RINO.
You are equivocating a man who liberated over 50 million people, saved millions of lives in Africa, Dignified the individual life, and brought integrity and honor back to our white house with democrat scum? No wonder this country is so f^^^^ed up. God Bless President Bush.
Clinton mentioned all that money in talk radio....Rush let it be known that the money was earned from his audience through sponsors and listening power. No government or private money. No $450,000 Dubai speeches, trashing America. Rush worked his way from the very bottom to where he is now.
The obvious tact would be to take this thru to the Supremes asking that these boards be extended to all media including TV and cable news...watch the howling begin then!
“Dobbs, another useless RINO. Hey Mr. RINO, the Democratic Party is way over that way (looks west to see San Fransisco)”
Did you spend too much time in the sun?
Your post made zero sense.
Dobbs considers himself an “Independent Populist”...but definitely with more conservative leanings, and in the traditional sense.
Dobbs is definitely strong on Border Security, against Illegal Alien Amnesty, against rampant Globalism/Free Trade...more of an economic nationalist
Dobbs, however, did not support the war in Iraqi (one of the few things there is disagreement).
Dobbs for many years was CNNs main business correspondent and host (Moneyline) and was quite supportive of big business until a few years ago....when he started discovering many Americans were losing jobs to non-Americans via bad trade deals.
Probably his biggest opponent is Michael Medved, the faux-conservative Hollywood liberal movie critic....and John Stossel, the “libertarian”
I’m pretty sure he is a Republican, but like I said he is a RINO. Typical country club Republican. McCain was strong on a few issues like our military, but his awful stance on amnesty for illegals far outweighs the good. Same thing with Dobbs. Watch him and you clearly see he is a RINO behind that Republican facade.
Have you ever seen his show? The guy is worthless. Might as well start calling Wolf Blitzer a conservative then if you habe no problem with Dobbs.
Dobbs has been sounding the alarm bell on illegal immigration and assymetric trade for a long time. I would not assume he’s a pubbie. Strikes me as more of an independent or maybe even blue-dog dem. That being said, he’s probably more ‘conservative’ than 1/2 of the Republican caucus.
And yet there are those on here that are OK with that about him. My views are if the guy is that wrong about an issue he should never be considered for office. Sure, Dobbs isn't an official for public office, but there are those that would elect him even though he is far from a true conservative.
Probably his biggest opponent is Michael Medved, the faux-conservative Hollywood liberal movie critic....and John Stossel, the “libertarian” See this is the reason why I posted in this thread is to make a point. People on here would consider Medved to be a conservative, yet he strongly supported McCain, who obviously was not a conservative. And John Stossel, can you get more liberal than him?
Yeah it's great he is strong on illegal immigration. That's about it though. If he is more conservative than 1/2 out Republican caucus, then God help us, and the reason this is such am important factor and I hope people wake up and pull their head out of the sand so in 2010 the conservative candidates get selected for election.
And the most important place they need fairness is the classrooms. But the dems are going to limit the bill to the radio and their argument is the "airwaves" belong to all Americans and therefore should reflect the views of all Americans, which, to a liberal means their perverted views. So their concern really isn't about fairness, it's about control of opposing views, which is why I say this is an example of "liberal" totalitarianism.
Stop using leftist words. It is THE CENSORSHIP DOCTRINE.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172649/posts
it is important not to let leftists frame the argument. ask the mod to put “censorship doctrine” in parentheses next to the title.
THANK YOU!
Of course I agree with you, but for accuracy (and ethics in posting sources) I had to quote L. Dobbs’ words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.