Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
1. No, it didn't.
Yeah, actually it does. Idiot.
This is from the guy that sends a neg rep demanding that I learn how to debate.
Tell me something, Oh Great Master of Nothing, how is requiring a station to cover controversial topics, even if they don't want to, not about content? Why does the Supreme Court disagree with you?
That refers to your relentless crutch of ad hominem. If you ever figure your way out of that crutch you might be ready for your first debate.
And again, for at least the third time, stations were not "required to cover controversial topics". How the fuck would you measure that? Again, you get what you pay for in terms of sources. About.com is like Wiki-wannabe without a proofreader.
Depending on what defines "controversial" (what defines "obscenity"?), the radio where I worked during the active Fairness Doctrine either never covered controversial topics, OR we did cover them literally every day and never found ourselves forced to bring in a rebuttal. But then again we never went on the air and slandered anybody.
(/still offtopic)
Funny how the self declared expert on the Fairness Doctrine has proven himself completely incapable of actually defining it.
So, tell us, of master of nothing, what was the Fairness Doctrine all about if it wasn't about everything every person who posted a link that defined it says it is. Do you, perhaps, have a link to Walter Cronkite discussing on CBS Evening News? After all, it if doesn't come from a broadcaster, they can't read.