Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (3407)	12/24/2016 11:51:53 AM
From: Alex MG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 353906

that's your opinion, my opinion is blatant liars should be called "blatant liars"... they shouldn't be coddled if Trump's never-ending lies and all the fake news had been called out more by the media maybe we wouldn't be stuck with a narcissistic maniac as PEOTUS it's perfectly reasonable to give people a chance, but when it's obvious there is no reasonable discourse to be had other than blatant and ugly lies then they are what they are - Liars the decline of discourse in the country can be largely attributed to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (thanks Raygun)... then add in "Citizens United" (gotta love the Orwellian term) given by the conservative SCOTUS, and the propaganda (lies) has continued to flourish the rise of Rush Limbaugh and all the lying liars on the right can definitely be attributed to elimination of the FD >...The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine. [1] The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States. [2] [3] The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.