cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 09:23 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Should the government |
|
(well not this one, but imagine we have a dem president and both houses) shut down Fox News Corp?
|
Kerrytravelers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I think it would send a bad message to shut them down. |
|
It would give them something to hang their hat on, and I couldn't blame them.
I voted for the Fairness Doctrine.
|
liberalhistorian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Agreed; it'd set a very dangerous |
|
precedent and we still do have a 1st amendment, at least for the moment. Government should not have a role in press management, not even for blatant propagandizing SOBs like Fox.
|
Tom Joad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 09:34 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Repeal Telecommunications act Clinton signed. Reinstate Fairness doctrine. Yes |
Wonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 09:40 PM
Response to Original message |
3. If the Fairness Doctrine were brought back, FAUX would wither and die. |
|
FAUX as we know it would, anyway. They could survive by complying with it, but then they wouldn't be the poison they are now anymore, anyway.
|
Nutmegger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message |
5. As a cable station, I believe Faux wouldn't be obligated to comply |
|
with the Fairness Doctrine. Right?
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Actually, you're absolutely correct. It only applied |
Wonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-03-06 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Well, the original was written in 1949. Obviously, we'd need it updated |
|
for the 21st century, taking things like cable and satellite broadcasting into account as well.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:29 PM
Response to Original message |