Kerry wants to ban NRA tv channel

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava
forgive diplomat... he's a victim of faux news and rush limbaugh propaganda... and he's a Packer fan.

Wait? Are you saying that I am a Packers fan? That's news to me cause I hate football!

[Berzerker]

Umm...MarkG, Betty is not a "guy".

"We urge you to prevent the NRA from hijacking America's airwaves with the gun lobby's money," Kerry's letter said. "If the NRA has something to say, it can play by the rules, just like the millions of people in America who do every day."

Those millions of people don't include the politicians, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, AARP, or many other organisations. These people have a different set of rules to play by...

MtG -

This is an issue of being able to manipulate elections with completely unaccountable media access, and no possibility of a level playing field for all parties. If the NRA has unrestricted access, it's own channels, and unlimited funds beyond FEC accounting, it will be the only organization in the US with that privilege, and there is no effective counter with equal time or equal access rules.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech.
Are the GOP and DNC restricted? Do the parties and networks afford the rest of us "equal time"? How about the NY Times? There are many organisations already exempt...

We already have enough problems with obscene campaign costs and corporate/lobbyist whoring by our elected officials, so granting one PAC or lobbying organization this sort of exemption will undoubtedly lead to ALL well heeled lobbying organizations doing the same thing. Being able to saturate the media with false or misleading last minute ad campaigns, without any restriction, and with public figure immunity from defamation is a great advance for democracy, don't you think?

Then get together with people who agree with you and start your own TV station to counter the NRA. Yeah, "democracy" is served so much better by letting only the Republicrats and their media=corporate outlets the freedom to use the airwaves to manipulate the populace... Having too many voices presenting their views is not the problem, restricting who can say what is a problem. Of course, we wouldn't have this problem with special interests if Congress wasn't using the Constitution to wipe their behinds...

This is the Alien & Sedition Act II

[Berzerker]

the *last* thing we need, IMO, is a special interest group passing itself off as a legitimate source of journalism.

Who will view the NRA channel as a legitimate source of journalism? Hell, I don't view CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS as legitimate sources of journalism.

You let them all have 'news' channels with the campaign finance exception then you've basically gutted McCain-Feingold through a loophole.

This part of McCain-Feingold should be gutted.

Because there are an interest group. If you allow the NRA to run a propaganda channel (and it will be), you have to allow EVERY interest group to run a channel.

So what? Why are the Republicrats allowed to throw around their propaganda but not the rest of us?

[GhengisFarb™]

There is absolutely no good reason to ban an NRA channel or even the NRA for using it for political means. The Oligarchal ruling of the Supreme Court to ban free speech before elections would have allowed the NRA to say anything they wanted in their PRINT medium anyway.

Besides we already have a Golf channel and if that isn't an evil special interest you need to check your medication.

[MikeH]

Just ban the NRA (and other silly organisations) until they start being less extreme and more sensible.

[Verto]

Originally posted by MikeH
Just ban the NRA (and other silly organisations) until they start being less extreme and more sensible.

Can I be the one who decides which organizations are extreme and silly?

[MikeH]

Just ban them on the basis of how annoying their adverts are.

[:) Smiley]

Television ain't journalism anyway, it's entertainment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech.

Does that mean people should have the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater. That is freedom of speech, is it not?

This part of McCain-Feingold should be gutted.

Should, would, could... but it ain't, so deal .

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

As long as the cable company doesnt force me to pay for the NRA channel or the ACLU channel, i dont care what they do.

Yes, but it wants a media exemption to be able to be called a news station, so it can get around McCain-Feingold.

So let them pour their money down a TV channel that will do them no good. The only people that will be watching it will be people that feel the way they do anyway. You talk like McCain-Feingold is a sarcred text and the NRA are heretics.

Anyone else here seriously belive that money and the political process will ever be separated? Has anyone noticed the so called "hate bush parties out in hollywood"?

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/12/03/20031203_200204_matthb1.htm

It's the way things are done by both sides. I know some here like to point out Bush raising all the money but don't mentioned Dean whoring around for his share. They are all the same. Perhaps they need a "Crazy Political Fringe Channel" so that all the lunitics can have a few minutes each day to vent their views. Hell, im sure some from poly would fit right in there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You talk like McCain-Feingold is a sarcred text and the NRA are heretics.

The problem is that McCain-Feingold prevents interest groups from naming candidates 30 days before an election. If the NRA can get the media exemption and name candidates until the cows come home, everyone else and their mothers will file for TV/radio stations and that part of the bill will be useless.

So keep the media exemption to actual news stations.

[Sprayber]

Can't a candidate demand equal time on a media outlet. So if the NRA starts promoting their candidates, cant other candidates then come in and demand air time .

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm wondering about that. I'm not sure what the actual law is on that, but it seems there may be a loophole around that as well, seeing as how the NRA is putting up this channel idea to get aroung M-F.

[Sprayber]

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html

I got it from the FCC site. Half way down it deals with Political issues..

Political Cablecasting

Once a cable system allows a legally qualified candidate to use its facilities, it must afford "equal opportunities" to all other candidates for that office to use its facilities. The cable system may not censor the content of the candidate's "equal opportunity" material in any way, and may not discriminate between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities or services rendered pursuant to the equal opportunities rules. Candidate appearances which are exempt from the "equal opportunities" rules include appearances on a bona fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide news documentary, or on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event.

Cable television systems may charge political candidates only the "lowest unit charge" of the system for the same class and amount of time for the same period, during the 45 days preceding a primary or runoff election and the 60 days preceding a general or special election. Candidates should be charged no more per unit than the system charges its most favored commercial advertisers for the same classes and amounts of time for the same periods. Information concerning the rates, terms, conditions and all discounts and privileges offered to commercial advertisers should be disclosed and made available to candidates.

Fairness Doctrine

Prior to the Fairness Doctrine's repeal in 1987, cable television system operators engaging in origination cablecasting were required to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on controversial issues of public importance. Although this requirement still appears in the Commission's rules, the fairness doctrine in its broadcast application and from which the cable rules is derived, is no longer enforced as a consequence of a Commission proceeding and a court decision.

Personal Attacks

When an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity, or like personal qualities of an identified person or group during origination cablecasting concerning controversial issues of public importance, the cable system must give the following to the person or group attacked within one week: (1) notification and identification of the cablecast, (2) a script, tape or accurate summary of the attack, and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the cable facilities. The rule exempts attacks by political candidates and their associates on other candidates, including attacks that occur during "uses" by candidates such as attacks made during bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews and on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events; and attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures.

Political Editorials

Once a cable system carries an editorial endorsing or opposing a legally qualified political candidate, it must give opposing candidates (or the candidate opposed in the editorial) an opportunity to respond. Within 24 hours after the political editorial, the cable system must give to the other candidates or the candidate opposed the following: (1) notification and identification of the editorial, (2) a script or tape of the editorial, and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or his or her spokesman to respond over the cable facilities. Where an editorial is cablecast within 72 hours prior to election day, the cable system is obliged to give notice and an opportunity to respond sufficiently far in advance to enable the candidate opposed or not endorsed a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response and to present it in a timely fashion.

[MrFun]

I'm a Democrat, but I am grateful that I do not support dumb ideas by some of the Democratic candidates.