[BC] Fairness doctrine by another name? Donna's humble request

[Cowboy]

On Tuesday 17 February 2009 11:44 am, Donna Halper wrote:
>  
>  I have the feeling that some rightie talkers  
>  would not be on the air if their companies didn't support them no 
>  matter how poor their ratings (some of those on Salem come to 
>  mind). 

 I've got to agree.
 Knowing a few owners with strong political leanings, they're certainly
 not above dedicating a station or three to a particular viewpoint, even
 if that viewpoint, or its presentation, loses money on THAT station, in
 THAT market, but generally don't do it without an overwhelmingly
 profitable other outlet to offset the losses.
 In fact, I've been witness to at least three different owners who have
 done exactly that, and proudly so.

On Tuesday 17 February 2009 10:50 am, Tom Bosscher wrote:
>      And just what is NPR's "All Things Not Considered" going to do when 
>  they have to have a 50/50 split?

 Ummm....
 Start considering *all* things, maybe ?
 ;)

On Tuesday 17 February 2009 09:08 am, Ernie Belanger wrote:

>  The sad thing about the post on the fairness doctrine is that you don't 
>  get to see all the comments in context. Just those quotes the reporter 
>  or editor choose to use. We all know that things get skewed based on bias.

 OK, Ernie, your right leanings are showing here.
 Accusing reporters of leaving out facts that might cause a bias
 is good fodder for talk show hosts on the right, but is it real ?

On Tuesday 17 February 2009 09:08 am, Ernie Belanger wrote:

>  The sad thing about the post on the fairness doctrine is that you don't 
>  get to see all the comments in context. Just those quotes the reporter 
>  or editor choose to use. We all know that things get skewed based on bias.

 OK, Ernie, your left leanings are showing here.
 Accusing folks like CNN reporters of leaving out facts that might cause a bias
 is good fodder for talk show hosts on the left, but is it real ?

 :)

-- 
Cowboy