Want to know what the media will look like after the so-called Fairness Doctrine is reinstituted? Then tune in tonight to CBSNBCFOXBETMSNBCTVONEUNIVISION at 8 p.m. I know. I know. The entire campaign has been a media infomercial for Obama for President. What's so special about tonight's Orwellian ad buy? The media has shamed itself with its cheerleading this election cycle. How much worse can it get? Much worse. The erosions of the First Amendment started with McCain-Feingold pseudo-campaign finance reform will be accelerated through the Fairness Doctrine, which will put supersensitive politicians in charge of determining what's fair and what's not. Who will guard the guardians?

There is one thing I can't seem to find on the Fairness Doctrine, and that is the doctrine itself, or some theoretical instantiation of it. From what I know, wouldn't the doctrine apply to Rachel Olberman and Keith Maddow? Wouldn't they, in accordance with fairness, have to somehow honor the very side they loathe and hate? In other words, wouldn't the doctrine put many liberals out of a job? I can't imagine anybody really favoring any application of this, and yes, I followed your link indicating the percentages who do.

You can't imagine giving equal time to both sides on the political spectrum ???
Right now - Conservatives outnumber liberals about 5-1 on Radio and TV. You guys are going to claim Newspapers are liberal. No objective study has ever attempted to prove that false premise.

"No objective study has ever attempted to prove that false premise."

Wow, I think that I've uncovered that you are in real life the late Yogi Berra.

It's dubious to prove a false premise. Attempting to prove a false premise doesn't make it any more likely. And I doubt that objective studies would be any better at proving them.

I doubt that I'd take your word on what was objective. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, but I can't remember the last time I was able to say "Rush Limbaugh said..." (or "I heard on Fox News..." or "I read on WND/Newsmax...") and have a liberal let me continue the sentence (with Drudge being iffy at best). Also, anybody on talk radio--all of whom I've listened to--are honest and gleeful about the partisanship.

But despite that newspapers and broadcast networks vote 90% democratic, they are the sources that I'm supposed to accept from the left as being the actual case. One cannot prove their bias, thus it is a false premise. (Ala a really good Argumentum ad Ignorantium)

That exists though in the same world wherein, somehow George W.'s DUI of 20 years prior was important breaking news in 2000. Yet all personal stuff about Obama's life and associations are supposed to be "side issues", and the media enforces that policy. Despite that Obama's campaign has been, in the main, one big guilt-by-association. We are wrong to look at Obama's associations, because again those aren't "the issues". And despite we shouldn't look at associations, it's big news that Colin Powell has associated his name with Barak Obama. We're not to look on his lack of record, or his Pyrrhic political victories in Chicago--we're just supposed to hear the man out and think of him as a pre-fab Man of Destiny who's not going to find everything a little harder to do than say.

I strongly doubt that any study would "prove" that there are 5-1 conservatives on TV, either, unless they were going by the Book of Chomsky. And if you lean too far left, you'll always find the world at your right. "There's just not enough Zinnish let's abolish the prisons POV on the news these days!! And far too many pro-penal system commentators!!"

Bias often lies in the idea that we expect our views to be represented and the views of others are jarring by contrast. Thus, we don't see the ground of what corresponds to our views. However any objective group to study bias could only say that they have tried to eliminate bias--but with the force of bias being as I outlined above, it would be a very subjective thing to say that you are "objective". Often a dissenting viewpoint can help us identify where our bias lies. When you dismiss dissent on the subject of bias out of hand, simply because it dissents in many other points, you've essentially reduced the input you are willing to receive and increased the groups cohesiveness to their perception, thus increased the likelihood of bias.

I am a socialist-sympathetic once-identified independent whose solidarity with the right is mainly based on sharing a religion and the atrocious bias of the liberal media.

"Newspapers are liberal. No objective study has ever attempted to prove that false premise." TV?
RC how can anyone take you serious, right or left. You are delusional?