http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2008/07/16/AR2008071602562_pf.html

Seems to me that Speaker Pelosi has no problem with media bias when the reporting is favorable to democratic candidates. Her silence speaks louder than words.

Quoting Pope (Thread starter): Seems to me that Speaker Pelosi has no problem with media bias when the reporting is favorable to democratic candidates. Her silence speaks louder than words.

That really goes for the entire DNC.

Quoting Pope (Thread starter): Seems to me that Speaker Pelosi has no problem with media bias when the reporting is favorable to democratic candidates.

Seems to me that the media has been pretty easy on McCain too. They accuse Obama of flip-flopping for a couple things while McCain changes his mind on a daily basis, or just gets the facts wrong entirely.
As for why she has no problem with the media bias when it favors democratic candidates; probably because she's a democrat. It's pretty standard in politics. Just like Democrats were against a special counsel when it investigated Clinton, but now they wish they hadn't eliminated it.

So what does Speaker Pelosi have to do with this? This is apparently a decision made by the three networks, which are private businesses.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3): So what does Speaker Pelosi have to do with this? This is apparently a decision made by the three networks, which are private businesses.

Speaker Pelosi has been a vocal advocate of bringing back the "fairness doctrine" to eliminate what she sees as a strong conservative the bias in the media.

Quoting Pope (Reply 4): Speaker Pelosi has been a vocal advocate of bringing back the "fairness doctrine" to eliminate what she sees as a strong conservative the bias in the media.

And the Speaker and the fairness doctrine has zero to do with this trip. It's being cover because the networks in their opinion, believe the trip is newsworthy. Plain and simple.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 5): And the Speaker and the fairness doctrine has zero to do with this trip. It's being cover because the networks in their opinion, believe the trip is newsworthy. Plain and simple.

Then why is it when radio hosts want to discuss certain topics which they consider newsworthy, Speaker Pelosi interjects herself and says that the country needs to reinstitute the fairness doctrine?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 5): It's being cover because the networks in their opinion, believe the trip is newsworthy.

What makes the trip more newsworthy than when McCain travels overseas?

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 7): What makes the trip more newsworthy than when McCain travels overseas?

It's very simple. McCain is a "been there-done that" politician the world is familiar with, and he's seen as the second incarnation of Bush -- who the rest of the world has seen more of than they like to think about.

Obama, on the other hand, is potentially the first black president who is is arguing for changes in foreign policy that would indicate a more collaborative approach. His reception is likely to be warmer, more interesting, more up-beat. And he might even put his foot in his mouth.

Given that news is 75% entertainment these days, and that you don't have an unlimited travel budget, which one would you cover?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 8): It's very simple. McCain is a "been there-done that" politician the world is familiar with, and he's seen as the second incarnation of Bush -- who the rest of the world has seen more of than they like to think about.

Since you think he's the "second incarnation of Bush" it's obvious you aren't that familiar with him or his policies...

Quoting Arrow (Reply 8): And he might even put his foot in his mouth.

Don't worry if you miss the foot in mouth, just keep watching... it happens every few minutes...  

Quoting Arrow (Reply 8): Given that news is 75% entertainment these days, and that you don't have an unlimited travel budget, which one would you cover?

Neither Obama nor McCain doing Europe has much news or entertainment value.

Why is it people get up in arms when told that Rush, Hannity, FOX, O'Rielly, Drudge, et al. are not honest and balanced news reporting, but when someone quotes NYT, Randi Rhodes, MSNBC, they are shouted down and told they are liberal heathens?

I have run into those types in person.

There is really no news anymore. It is about sales. Brad and Angelinas kids, Michael Jackson, are Madonna and A-Rod doin' it? what is Paris Hilton wearing this time? are more newsworthy than what the government is doing. Yes, government stuff can be boring, but I think that is way more important than what color Linsey Lohan painted her breakfast nook.

Psst Pope: According to the Nightly News, the press WAS not invited on McCain's trip..and the Democratic primary was still being hotly contested.. that is where the news was at that time.

[Edited 2008-07-17 17:29:21]

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3): So what does Speaker Pelosi have to do with this? This is apparently a decision made by the three networks, which are private businesses.

No they are not. They are required to play by the rules the FCC lays down. That's why you don't see the language and behaviours you see on cable. The equal time doctrine should apply here. If they are going to interview Sen. Obama on his trip through Europe and the middle east they should have done it for Sen. McCain to be fair.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 8): Obama, on the other hand, is potentially the first black president

Potentially the first? Who was potentially the other?   

Quoting Arrow (Reply 8): Given that news is 75% entertainment these days, and that you don't have an unlimited travel budget, which one would you cover?

Doesn't make any difference. The equal time rule should still apply.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 11): the press WAS not invited on McCain's trip..

Of course had they said "can we come along?" he would have said no. I actually think he was smarter. Instead of the dog and pony show this will turn out to be I have a feeling Sen. McCain was actually able to discuss facts and find out things that the crowds and attention will deny Sen. Obama.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 12): The equal time rule should still apply.

The strict equal time rule hasn't been around since Reagan. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 12): Who was potentially the other?

Have you checked to see who running for the Green Party nomination?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 12): Of course had they said "can we come along?" he would have said no.

Wasn't he on a military flight? Perhaps the military had a say in this due to safety concerns? Anyways nothing news worthy came out of the McCain trip except for some screw-ups on his part when speaking.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 12): I have a feeling Sen. McCain was actually able to discuss facts

Right How many times McCain (R-Media) has travel to the middle east for exposure?

[Edited 2008-07-17 17:57:19]

Quoting AirCop (Reply 13): The strict equal time rule hasn't been around since Reagan. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

No, you are talking about the fairness doctrine as it applies to radio and tv station programming. The equal time rule as it deals with political candidates still applies.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 13): Have you checked to see who running for the Green Party nomination?

Yes, why do you think I put the wink in there?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 13): Anyways nothing news worthy came out of the McCain trip except for some screw-ups on his part when speaking.

Your opinion and irrelevant as well..

Quoting AirCop (Reply 13): How many times McCain (R-Media) has travel to the middle east for exposure?

Your opinion again.

Quoting Pope (Thread starter):

First, why are you arguing it? If you think the Fairness Doctrine should remain extinct, you should not have a problem with this. Second, it looks to me like Obama offered this opportunity and McCain didn't. That sounds like it was McCain's fault for not taking advantage of this chance.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): Your opinion again.

A question is not an opinion..

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): Your opinion and irrelevant as well..

Apparently, the national media (mainstream and non-mainstream) agrees with me.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): No, you are talking about the fairness doctrine as it applies to radio and tv station programming. The equal time rule as it deals with political candidates still applies.

And if you read the act, the paragraph that I posted in the other tread you would see that it doesn't apply.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): The equal time rule as it deals with political candidates still applies.

I suppose a really good lawyer could make an argument that neither McCain nor Obama are currently a political candidate since they haven't been officially nominated by their respective political parties.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 16): A question is not an opinion..

A question can be posed as an opinion.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 16): Apparently, the national media (mainstream and non-mainstream) agrees with me.

As I stated in the other thread they will not be held accountable but the fact remains they are violating the equal time rule. Not the fairness doctrine, that is something entirely different.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 16): And if you read the act, the paragraph that I posted in the other tread you would see that it doesn't apply.

As I said I will get the exact FCC rule and post it both here and in the other thread when i have the chance.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 16): I suppose a really good lawyer could make an argument that neither McCain nor Obama are currently a political candidate since they haven't been officially nominated by their respective political parties.

A really good lawyer wouldn't touch it. Both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain have declared themselves candidates, that's all it takes.

I'm not quite sure that the Fairness Doctrine comes into play here. That said, it just proves (for the millionth time) that the mainstream media has pretty much become the media wing of the DNC. Whatever. Although it is quite disgusting as fair journalism has taken a back seat to active advocacy. As the networks go further and further into the bag for Democrats and Obama, their ratings will continue to fall. Interestingly enough, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's chairman has said that he believed that (the universally hated, despised, spat-upon) Fox News was the most fair network in their coverage of the primaries.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 16): And if you read the act, the paragraph that I posted in the other tread you would see that it doesn't apply.

Ok, too tired last night to fool around on the computer. Here is the actual rule.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7/usc_sec_47_00000315----000-.html

The pertinent part is below the 4 qualifiers.

Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

This is the catch-22 of the rule. As a broadcaster you can go ahead and focus on one candidate for a week if you wish, but that does not relieve you of having to provide "equal time" to his/her opponent. If Sen. McCain demands the time, they are obligated to give it to him in some form or other. If the network gives Sen. Obama a total of 20 minutes interview time, they are then obligated, should he or his campaign demand it, 20 minutes of equal time. In practice that won't happen because the networks would play up the "whiner" aspect of the demand and the only time this rule really comes into play is when one candidate thinks he's been charged more for air time than his opponent which is the second part of the rule.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 12): The equal time doctrine should apply here. If they are going to interview Sen. Obama on his trip through Europe and the middle east they should have done it for Sen. McCain to be fair.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 12): Doesn't make any difference. The equal time rule should still apply.

You sound like such a pinko commie... Controlling the media!

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 18): Fox News was the most fair network in their coverage of the primaries.

IMO, nobody had "fair coverage" of primaries. After McCain sealed the deal, everyone focused their attention on the Hillary/Obama fight. That is all we heard about for the longest time was Hillary/Obama.

Also, since when does a two or three word paraphrase become equal time? I have noticed that when one candidate or spokesperson for one party says something, the opposing view is usually boiled down to two or three words. Not just on FOX, but everywhere.

Have any of you noticed that McCain has been talking left and right about Obama's trip too?

I mean he is feeding the frenzy, "The trip is, too long, too short, too peaceful, too late, too soon, useless, use the trip to talk to military" he just doesn't shut up about it.

[Edited 2008-07-18 12:07:33]

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15): First, why are you arguing it? If you think the Fairness Doctrine should remain extinct, you should not have a problem with this. Second, it looks to me like Obama offered this opportunity and McCain didn't. That sounds like it was McCain's fault for not taking advantage of this chance.

I'm not arguing it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in the Speaker's position.

Second, Pelsoi's previous arguments for the fairness doctrine would require the media time to be made available, NOT that the show invite the guest. For example, if Rush interviewed McCain, her position wasn't that Rush would have to extend an invite to Obama, but rather that Clear Channel (or its individual stations) would have to make the same number of minutes available to Obama's people for a counter argument.

Sorry RJ, you didn't print the whole code section. Let's just print the information above the paragraph that you printed.

Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection.

Since Obama trip falls into #4, the networks do not have to give McCain equal time.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 22): mean he is feeding the frenzy, "The trip is, too long, too short, too peaceful, too late, too soon, useless, use the trip to talk to military" he just doesn't shut up about it.

He giving free time to Obama. I wonder if he is sorry that he didn't come up with the idea of talking with the leaders of European countries, instead of "leaders" of government of countries that are unstable.

Anyways RJ, subject to validation of your law degree, I won't put that much faith in your opinion on this subject.

[Edited 2008-07-18 13:41:21]

I didn't know Madame Speaker was in charge of the Network anchors, Pope? That probably shoots down your lame theory that the Dems control the media.   

Nancy Pelosi has nothng to do with this. If you don't like the Anchors following Obama abroad, write to the networks. Oh, I forgot, this isn't about that. It's about your constant whining and crying about Pelosi and Obama. My bad.

Sorry, but you got this one wrong, Pope. Then again, what else is new?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 24): Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any— (1) bona fide newscast, (2) bona fide news interview, (3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Since Obama trip falls into #4, the networks do not have to give McCain equal time.

Exactly. It is simply covering the news. Sorry boys, but your constant grasping at straw is beginning to make you look 1. silly, and 2. desperate. I'm loving it, too. Simply because, as it looks now, you righties are going to have such a miserable 4 years coming up.  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 25): I didn't know Madame Speaker was in charge of the Network anchors, Pope? That probably shoots down your lame theory that the Dems control the media. Nancy Pelosi has nothng to do with this. If you don't like the Anchors following Obama abroad, write to the networks. Oh, I forgot, this isn't about that. It's about your constant whining and crying about Pelosi and Obama. My bad. Sorry, but you got this one wrong, Pope. Then again, what else is new?

Your statement just highlights your ignorance of Speaker Pelosi's own statements on the matter. Perhaps you should Google what the Speaker has said about it before posting. The Speaker no more controls the networks than she controls Rush Limbaugh's program. But she's said that she believe that the doctrine needs to be brought back.

But then again, you're the one who routinely insults Supreme Court justices and has admitted never to having read a single one of their opinions. So go ahead wallow in your ignorance, blame everyone else for your failures and spend the next four years mad about something.

Quoting Pope (Reply 26): Your statement just highlights your ignorance of Speaker Pelosi's own statements on the matter.

Her statements 1. Don't matter, and 2. Aren't relavant here, as was explaned earlier. It does not fall under the Fairness Doctrine, which you're just ignoring. It's being covered as a news event, not a campaign event. If you have trouble with it, again,

But, again, this isn't about any of that. This is about the fact you don't like either Pelosi or Obama, and will you even false info to bitch about them. That, in the end, is what it is all about. The media followed McCain down to South America a few weeks ago-where was your protests tha Obama should get equal time then? Again, it didn't apply.

Quoting Pope (Reply 26): But then again, you're the one who routinely insults Supreme Court

Is there some law against that, Pope? You fequently insult the Speaker of the House, Senator Obama, an any other Democrat you like. Is there a difference? Or are there different rules for you and me? So, just spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y. This is what you're about on this subject.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27): Is there some law against that, Pope? You fequently insult the Speaker of the House, Senator Obama, an any other Democrat you like. Is there a difference? Or are there different rules for you and me? So, just spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y. This is what you're about on this subject.

There's no law against that - at least as long as Speaker Pelosi doesn't get her way. But I've never once criticized a substantive position on a matter I was ignorant on. You seem to enjoin wallowing in ignorance, repeatedly saying that others parrot the administration's position on matters and then do exactly the same thing. Who's the hypocrite?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27): Her statements 1. Don't matter, and 2. Aren't relevant here, as was explaned earlier. It does not fall under the Fairness Doctrine, which you're just ignoring. It's being covered as a news event, not a campaign event. If you have trouble with it, again,

Whose to say that Speaker Pelosi's legislation bringing back the Fairness Doctrine doesn't eliminate any such distinction. One man's news event is another's propaganda. In an election year any candidate's electioneering becomes news. So a doctrine that allows the selective enforcement by drawing a distinction without a difference is very troubling. For someone who so often speaks out on what he views as violation of terrorist's "constitutional rights", I would think that you'd at least be mildly concerned when the leader of the democratic party advocates stifling American's well established constitutional rights. But again, I see you have no problem with hypocrisy.

Quoting Pope (Reply 26): But she's said that she believe that the doctrine needs to be brought back.

She talked about it a little bit, it got nearly zero support, yet Limbaugh and Hannity talk about it as if the entire Democratic party is behind it.
I agree with Pelosi on many things, that was not one of them, but I really didn't see her talk about it all that much.
Is it hypocritical of her to be for it then but drop it now that the coverage has shifted to her favor? Absolutely. But she is a politician, just like McCain being against offshore drilling until it was politically expedient for him to change his mind, just like he didn't talk about Afghanistan (and skipped all 6 hearings on Afghanistan conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee) until it became clear Obama was right all along.

This whole fairness doctrine stuff is crazy. Should we have a topic for every politician, maybe even every person, and we can discuss what they've done that's hypocritical?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 24): Since Obama trip falls into #4, the networks do not have to give McCain equal time.

Again, if you read the sentence below those four points, which I referenced in my post and didn't bother to repost since a mature person would understand you will read where none of the four points relieves the station or network from equal time.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19): Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

It couldn't be more clear unless you just don't want to see it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27): It does not fall under the Fairness Doctrine, which you're just ignoring.

Get a clue, this is not about the fairness doctrine which is an entirely separate matter and rule. It is about the equal time rule as it pertains to political candidates. If you can't get your facts straight just don't chime in at all OK?

Quoting Pope (Reply 23): Second, Pelsoi's previous arguments for the fairness doctrine would require the media time to be made available, NOT that the show invite the guest. For example, if Rush interviewed McCain, her position wasn't that Rush would have to extend an invite to Obama, but rather that Clear Channel (or its individual stations) would have to make the same number of minutes available to Obama's people for a counter argument.

The issue here is that Obama asked them along. If McCain asked them along and they refused, you might have an argument.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 30): Get a clue, this is not about the fairness doctrine which is an entirely separate matter and rule. It is about the equal time rule as it pertains to political candidates.

Newscasts don't fall under the fairness doctrien, RJ. And that's why the anchors are going to follow him. I don't recall, whenever Mr. Bush made a trip in '04, that people were screaming for equal time for Kerry, or visa-versa.

This is a non-issue, brought up by a mindset that loves to clutter the real issues iwth such things. It has nothing to do with the Fariness Doctrine. It has everything to do with finding something to bitch about.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 16): I suppose a really good lawyer could make an argument that neither McCain nor Obama are currently a political candidate since they haven't been officially nominated by their respective political parties.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17): A really good lawyer wouldn't touch it. Both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain have declared themselves candidates, that's all it takes.

I don't know that I'm a really good lawyer, but I'll claim to be pretty good, so I looked up the definition of legally qualified candidate.

RJdxer is right, but he's wrong on the why. Declaring yourself a candidate doesn't cut it. Check for yourself at 47 CFR §73.1940...  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32): Newscasts don't fall under the fairness doctrien

See above. This time bother to read it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32): don't recall, whenever Mr. Bush made a trip in '04, that people were screaming for equal time for Kerry, or visa-versa.

Because the media were all over Kerry. For every minute the President got Kerry most likely got two.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32): It has nothing to do with the Fariness Doctrine.

Correct, it has everything to do with the equal time rule.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 34): Because the media were all over Kerry. For every minute the President got Kerry most likely got two.

I'm sure your reactionary mind remembers it that way. More's the pity.  

It may not be close to the truth, but it obviouisly makes you feel better, and gives you something to complain about when it comes to us evil liberals.

The "fairness doctrine" is a load of unconstitutional crapola in my humble opinion. The networks are entitled to cover anyone they want however much they want, but they shouldn't complain when right accused of editorially favoring one candidate over the other (and covering one more than the other in a nationally contested election is favoring). People making their opinions on the subject heard is also legal.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3): So what does Speaker Pelosi have to do with this? This is apparently a decision made by the three networks, which are private businesses.

Speaker Pelosi will be the first one to scream bloody murder about the "fairness doctrine" when it suits her. Mentioning her name keeps that fact fresh in the mind so it will be more noticeable when it happens.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 5): And the Speaker and the fairness doctrine has zero to do with this trip. It's being cover because the networks in their opinion, believe the trip is newsworthy. Plain and simple.

The trip is newsworthy, but it's also being treated as an anointing trip for him, where the cheerleading in Europe (by many of the people, not governments who are fairly leery of Obama for various reasons). His decision to go to Afghanistan and Iraq (finally) are simply so he can say he's been there and try to use that to quell his critics who point out his ignorance of many issues. He did go and say that he recognized improvements but still feels justified in voting against the surge. I wonder if that dichotomy (hypocrisy?) will be brought up to him in hte form of some question? If the news isn't in the tank for him it oughta be.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10): There is really no news anymore. It is about sales. Brad and Angelinas kids, Michael Jackson, are Madonna and A-Rod doin' it? what is Paris Hilton wearing this time? are more newsworthy than what the government is doing.

On this we agree. I am offended that people think I'm more interested in Britney and K-feds lives than I am in the soldiers fighting, or the results they're achieving. It's irritating to find a national news watch on Brangelina (disgusting to a degree) in that the news networks assume I'm more interested in that then I am in what's really going on in the world that affects me. Do an in depth report on the lack of refineries, or the real facts on the oil leases the Dems say we ought to be exploiting right now.....if they're full of oil why aren't the oil companies exploiting them? How about a news editorial asking why there isn't any noise about the recent drop in oil prices the same week the speculators heard President Bush lift the executive order.....talking about more drilling seemed to lower prices.....isn't that news? Worthy of discussion? For both sides of the issue?

Don't feed me more crap about some celebrity-for-being-a-celebrity. I don't need to see Kim kardashians family on television as much as I need to see how real the participation of the Sunnis is in Iraq. Or an in depth investigation of where those .50cal rifles we confiscated in Iraq came from (Austria via whom?).