Barbara's Sharebook 

JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE IN YOUR E-MAIL, DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE YOUR FRIENDS! Repukes have evidently gotten onto a lot of people's e-mail lists, probably by illegitimate means. So in your e-mail you find things like this:

"Join the hundreds of thousands of citizens taking action now through MRC's Free Speech Alliance, and our national petition opposing the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine."

Sounds just like the ACLU, or Citizens for Obama, or Union of Concerned Scientists, doesn't it!!! They know the kind of pitch that wins adherents!

I call this, "the Faux Populism of the Losers". They are imitating the winners, hoping no-one will notice the difference!!!!!!!!!

"Media Research Counsel" also sounds very dignified and proper. As if they'd be neutral, non-partisan. It could even have been ripped off from the name of a legitimate Media Watchdog Group; just changing it slightly!

A lot of us are extremely busy these days, we see this sort of thing and the buzz-words, like "Freedom" and "Free Speech" and "Fairness" and such; and we'll sign anything! allowing them to use those words to lure and confuse us! thinking we are "striking a blow for democracy and the little guy". AND DON'T THE LIARS AND DECEIVERS KNOW THIS!!!

PLEASE READ, if you haven't already, ANYthing written by George Lakoff; on semantics and Political Speech. Lakoff speaks of the Right being expert at "framing" the issues to suit their  biases and agendas. Really, you can't in depth understand a thing about Modern Politics, until you have read George Lakoff!!! He dissects the Repuke mis-use and twisting of words......expertly. It is necessary to know exactly how they do what they do, in order to refute them on their own ground!

 
MIS-CONCEPTIONS 

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn't require that the balance of a station's program lineup be anything like 50/50.

The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: "The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public's right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters' rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion."
Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media,

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.

[From FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy In Media]