I’m planning to be in attendance at this tomorrow.
Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Topics
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Another debate? What are the candidates going to say now that they haven’t said at the last few?
And people should speak out against the Fairness Doctrine why again?
Ya know, maybe this isn’t such a dumb tactic – I’d like to see the Repube candidates asked about whether or not they supported the renewal of the Voting Rights Act last year, considering a number of Repube congresscritters were against it.
Is this going to feature fabo republican hack Frank Luntz offering analysis? Can you bring tomatoes to throw at him?
“Will they be asked about the “Fairness Doctrine? Will any of them have the courage to speak out against it? Doubtful on both counts.”
The only person who thinks the Fairness Doctrine is a current issue is Inhofe. Why on earth would that even come up as a question?
“Another debate? What are the candidates going to say now that they haven’t said at the last few?”
And there’s less than 500 days till election day. So get used to hearing both sides say the same thing about a hundred times.
Fun.
“Will they be asked about the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”
What’s so bad about the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’ If you use public airwaves, you should serve some public good. If not, you should pay rent for them.
This regulation wouldn’t be an issue, if there were more competition in the marketplace. Then the free market could take over.
The Fairness Doctrine, in the form it existed before 1986, is completely unworkable today.
Who gets to decide who deserves “equal time”? If Rush Limbaugh uses his show to campaign against the immigration bill (and he has), does the Republican Party get air time to rebut him? How about the Democrats? What about Democrats who disagree with the bulk of the party? Minute Men? Libertarians? Immigrant Rights groups?
Supposing you can narrow down the argument to just two (or even three) points of view, who decides who is qualified to speak on behalf of the sides? Do I get to hear Joe Lieberman speak for the Dems in “rebuttal” to George Bush?
No, it won’t work, and the only people who are bringing it up are conservatives trying to spin up a “liberal censorship” scare story to ignite their base.
Yep. That’s why I prefer the third choice, more competition. Too few people control too much of the media market in the United States.
Instead of a debate between the candidates, I would like to see each candidate from both parties participate in multiple 2 hour sessions on single topics. Answers can be no more than 5 minutes in length, and the questioner, who will be an expert in his field, would be able to ask as many follow up questions as he or she likes.
The only way to really get a good understanding of who these people are is to put them out of their comfort zones. If that suggestion is too wacky, then perhaps something else to get them out of character. Maybe some “non-torture” stress positions?
each candidate from both parties participate in multiple 2 hour sessions on single topics
Buh…but…John! How could any of them ever memorize enough facile slogans to fill two whole hours?!? Your suggestion is obviously just impractical.
“Yep. That’s why I prefer the third choice, more competition. Too few people control too much of the media market in the United States.”
I agree. The real step forward would be to restore the media ownership rules of the 1980’s to restore local ownership of print and broadcast media. Local ownership has been replaced by Gannett and Clear Channel, which don’t serve their local community interest.
“Instead of a debate between the candidates, I would like to see each candidate from both parties participate in multiple 2 hour sessions on single topics.”
Good god, a sensible suggestion. Kill it! Kill it before it spreads!
Isn’t the competition already out there? Don’t get me wrong, I agree that too much media consolidation is a bad thing, and while we can argue over which outlets are slanted one way or the other, the bottom line is, they want to make money above anything else. It’s the reason why CNN wanted to get a post jail interview with freaking Paris Hilton.
But wouldn’t any of you agree that as time goes by more and more people are already turning to alternative forms of media to get their message out? I know that some people have advocated for the FCC to sell local radio licenses to people that would extend out for a few miles at most, but what’s the point? Any person can easily set up an Internet radio station and reach people all over the country.
“Isn’t the competition already out there? Don’t get me wrong, I agree that too much media consolidation is a bad thing, ”
No. Six companies effectively control the media in the United States.
It used to be you would have six companies involved in the media in a single town. (If you include newspapers, radio, and TV.)
“Any person can easily set up an Internet radio station and reach people all over the country.”
But for how long? Without ney neutrality, that will end very fast.
Also, the Internet is crap for getting your message out. Trust me on this one, you can’t sell a movie on the Internet, I’ve seen the ugly results when people try.