Train wrecks are fun to watch? Sometimes they're fun to comment on, too. That's usually about when I pipe in with a jab
. Again, sorry to hurt your feelings. Or not. Dunno.
. Again, sorry to hurt your feelings. Or not. Dunno.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
lol, @ your repeated claims of understanding reality when it's blatantly clear you don't. Maybe you should get your head out of books and get in touch with the real world...Originally posted by: eskimospy
Your 'insulting people on the internet 101' jabs aside, (Isn't 'HURR HURR GO OUTSIDE AND MAKE FRIENDS' so 1998-2001?) I'm not too worried if some idiots on an internet forum think I'm well read or not. What I stated was a fact, I've spent a lot of time learning about this, and CAD obviously hasn't.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Aww... so really it all just boils down to your feelings being hurt. You've done all this reading, and despite your best efforts to put that to real world use, and your best efforts to convince us all that you're "read", you're still falling flat.Originally posted by: eskimospy
The reason why I say that is because you don't respond to the things I write, you just run in and try and talk shit to me unrelated to the thread topic. You are clearly attempting to engage me personally, and not the issue.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Wow... what a complex you have. I respond to you and you think I'm following you around? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers so much
Hey everybody - don't talk to eskimospy or he'll start concocting his own flattering notions of some perceived relationship between the two of you.
Yikes and ick, buddy.
It's okay. I can't say it's not flattering. Do you want a signed photograph?
I'll try playing nicer with you. Well, actually, if you're going to draw these dark, exotic conclusions based on someone calling you out, I'll probably just forget you exist. No need to mix it up with someone craving a stalker fantasy. My suggestion is to try forming some real world relationships.
You keep claiming you're going to forget I exist and I keep waiting. Why can't you quit me?
Stop, he might cut himselfOriginally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, @ your repeated claims of understanding reality when it's blatantly clear you don't. Maybe you should get your head out of books and get in touch with the real world...Originally posted by: eskimospy
Your 'insulting people on the internet 101' jabs aside, (Isn't 'HURR HURR GO OUTSIDE AND MAKE FRIENDS' so 1998-2001?) I'm not too worried if some idiots on an internet forum think I'm well read or not. What I stated was a fact, I've spent a lot of time learning about this, and CAD obviously hasn't.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Aww... so really it all just boils down to your feelings being hurt. You've done all this reading, and despite your best efforts to put that to real world use, and your best efforts to convince us all that you're "read", you're still falling flat.Originally posted by: eskimospy
The reason why I say that is because you don't respond to the things I write, you just run in and try and talk shit to me unrelated to the thread topic. You are clearly attempting to engage me personally, and not the issue.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Wow... what a complex you have. I respond to you and you think I'm following you around? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers so much
Hey everybody - don't talk to eskimospy or he'll start concocting his own flattering notions of some perceived relationship between the two of you.
Yikes and ick, buddy.
It's okay. I can't say it's not flattering. Do you want a signed photograph?
I'll try playing nicer with you. Well, actually, if you're going to draw these dark, exotic conclusions based on someone calling you out, I'll probably just forget you exist. No need to mix it up with someone craving a stalker fantasy. My suggestion is to try forming some real world relationships.
You keep claiming you're going to forget I exist and I keep waiting. Why can't you quit me?
I hear you brother. :brokenheart:Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
We're all just chasing that rainbow.
I wouldn't worry about hurting my feelings. Actually if you think you can hurt my feelings I encourage you to try, I'm just interested to see what you would come up with.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Train wrecks are fun to watch? Sometimes they're fun to comment on, too. That's usually about when I pipe in with a jab
You are more than welcome to pretend I don't exist as you keep promising... it just doesn't seem to be working out so well for you. Remember: self control jbourne! It's what separates us from the animals.
In all seriousness, many of the posts I see of yours make some reference to how you read a lot of books on how government works, so we should just bow to your superiority on the subject. You're practically flabbergasted when someone has the audacity to continue posting after you've played your "I read books on this stuff all the time SO I KNOW" trump card. The stance is laughable, and that you're always trying to play that ridiculous card is why I responded. Quit trying to convince us (and you) that you're smart enough to converse here. In all honesty, it's kind of sad that you feel you need to prove something to a bunch of strangers, most of whom are here simply to burn some time off at work and really don't take it all that seriously.Originally posted by: eskimospy
I wouldn't worry about hurting my feelings. Actually if you think you can hurt my feelings I encourage you to try, I'm just interested to see what you would come up with.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Train wrecks are fun to watch? Sometimes they're fun to comment on, too. That's usually about when I pipe in with a jab
You are more than welcome to pretend I don't exist as you keep promising... it just doesn't seem to be working out so well for you. Remember: self control jbourne! It's what separates us from the animals.
Speaking of work, it's quittin time. Later stiffs.
You want me to get in touch with the 'real world' in terms of interbranch governmental influence struggles in our nation's capital, but not by reading about it. I'd love to hear how you would suggest going about this.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, @ your repeated claims of understanding reality when it's blatantly clear you don't. Maybe you should get your head out of books and get in touch with the real world...
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,992
- 96
- 91
I hope it does. The public airwaves are a resource that shouldn't cater to one side of the other. We allow entities to broadcast using what is a finite number of slots for them to do so. The FCC issues these licenses with certain requirements that they provide a service to the community, i.e. cover news or provide emergency info, etc. Putting restrictions to how these outlets operate isn't only necessary/proper, it is with heavy precedent. Besides, it has more to do with freedom of access than freedom of speech. It isn't like such a requirement would put a big burden on freedom of the PRESS as they still have all physical (print) media and cable/sattellite or even online venues. Those are unaffected by this type of regulation as they are not broadcast media. There is an unlimited number of those venues, but broadcast is another animal altogether.
Yeah, I really do get mad when people know things. If we were talking about chemistry and it was some random idiot talking to someone who had a chemistry degree, I guess the guy with the chemistry degree would just be playing a ridiculous card to mention that he knew something about the subject. Unfortunately this is politics, one of those areas where every jackass thinks he knows something about the topic even if he doesn't.Originally posted by: jbourne77
In all seriousness, many of the posts I see of yours make some reference to how you read a lot of books on how government works, so we should just bow to your superiority on the subject. You're practically flabbergasted when someone has the audacity to continue posting after you've played your "I read books on this stuff all the time SO I KNOW" trump card. The stance is laughable, and that you're always trying to play that ridiculous card is why I responded. Quit trying to convince us (and you) that you're smart enough to converse here. In all honesty, it's kind of sad that you feel you need to prove something to a bunch of strangers, most of whom are here simply to burn some time off at work and really don't take it all that seriously.Originally posted by: eskimospy
I wouldn't worry about hurting my feelings. Actually if you think you can hurt my feelings I encourage you to try, I'm just interested to see what you would come up with.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Train wrecks are fun to watch? Sometimes they're fun to comment on, too. That's usually about when I pipe in with a jab
You are more than welcome to pretend I don't exist as you keep promising... it just doesn't seem to be working out so well for you. Remember: self control jbourne! It's what separates us from the animals.
Speaking of work, it's quittin time. Later stiffs.
You can keep responding to me all you want, to be honest I'm sort of enjoying making fun of you and I've got 2 1/2 more hours at work to kill.
How should fictional shows that have political over tones be dealt with? Would shows like West Wing, and Boston Legal need to leave 10 minutes of rebuttal at the end of episode?
Or do you think networks would drop them instead of using valuable air time for something people will just turn off?
Dr. Zaus
Lifer
- Oct 16, 2008
- 11,770
- 347
- 126
If you don't think that in the past 24 years the court has changed to be conservative enough not to stand for such an unconstitutional act you are sadly mistaken.
I noticed this to, you are well informed and you keep getting trolled... I don't get it.Originally posted by: eskimospy
The reason why I say that is because you don't respond to the things I write, you just run in and try and talk shit to me unrelated to the thread topic. You are clearly attempting to engage me personally, and not the issue.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Wow... what a complex you have. I respond to you and you think I'm following you around? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers so much
Hey everybody - don't talk to eskimospy or he'll start concocting his own flattering notions of some perceived relationship between the two of you.
Yikes and ick, buddy.
It's okay. I can't say it's not flattering. Do you want a signed photograph?
This is a poor argument, the bandwidth available for broadcast is much larger than the number of stations filling the air.
The problem is that one man's art is another mans pornography.
or to quote a good point another way:
SNL needs to give the McKain camp time to counter the sara palin impression?
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,992
- 96
- 91
-snip-
Edit: I fail at quoting properly.
In many places, yes. However, in more densely populated areas, the incentive for any and every organization, political or otherwise is too great. These regulations prevent "anyone and everyone" from spamming the airwaves. This is why licenses are available at a cost - that cost being public service and monetary conpensation.
This is true, but that isn't what the fairness doctrine deals with. It deals with politics and news - information which determines the direction of our society as a whole. A balanced debate between multiple viewpoints is imperative for a democracy to function.
As Potter Stewart put it, "I may not be able to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
They shouldn't. There is a very discernible difference between comedy/political satire, op-ed/debate/opinion, and actual news. (although the lines between those last two sections are getting dangerously blurred as of late). West Wing, SNL, Boston Legal, etc. clearly fall under the first category. Limbaugh, Orielly, Olbermann, Frankin, etc. clearly fall under the second. The third is getting harder and harder to find, but I guess you could say it is anything that is "just the facts". ("Info-tainment" FTL) The fairness doctrine only is supposed to apply to 2 (when it gets blatantly out of hand) and mainly 3.
Edit: I fail at quoting properly.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,992
- 96
- 91
Only ones that can be reasonably accomodated. There are limits to how much content can be broadcast, so it has to be done within reason. The purpose of the fairness doctrine isn't to make sure that everyone is included so much as it is to ensure that everyone else isn't shut out, that our public airwaves aren't too one-sided.
As media companies consolidate, I believe that this becomes even more important. If a station owner decides to support one cause/party/idealogy/etc, then he/she has the power to put forth only that POV that they wish to shill for. Those who have the gold/influence will then control the entirety of OTA media over time. This is dangerous and is part of what the fairness doctrine is supposed to help prevent.
Are you going to give tax dollars to radio stations to cover losses on liberal shows? If not you kill off talk radio. The fairness doctrine is not about getting all view points out there. It is about getting talk radio shut down for good. So the only voice out there will be the liberal MSM and fox news. Since schools are paid for by tax dollars can we force both sides to be taught in school?
There are just way too many grey areas. The fairness doctrine sounds like a good idea on paper, but in practice it's too easy to get around. Better just to leave well enough alone.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,992
- 96
- 91
No. Including other viewpoints isn't something that requires having an extra "liberal" show. Somehow I think you are trying to make a subtle comparison to Rush's show and his "EIB Network" to the semi-recent Air America experiment. Forcing stations to include such shows isn't what the fairness doctrine calls for. It will not be the end of talk radio, or of Rush, either. When a station applies for and purchases an FCC license for broadcast, they sign up for a certain amount of public service. This we do not, nor have ever compensated them for that. Nor should we.
Here's a better scenario: Station A is a strongly politically-leaning AM Talk Radio station. Lets say the Fairness doctrine is in place. Then, station A cannot simply decide to cover all campaign events for "their" candidates or cover only news that is favorable to them, despite the requirement that they broadcast community news. They cannot actively promote those causes so one-sidedly that they are in a sense campaigning for them. They cannot deny the opportunity for the opposition candidate to PURCHASE air time to rebut whatever views or misinformation that was said against them. Nobody said they had to do it for free, just that other sides be given the opportunity to get equal time at the same rates. Nobody is out any money.
Never fear for Rush et AL. They will be fine. Talk radio will be fine. They won't be off the air anytime soon doctrine or no doctrine.
Now, as for your other statements.
FAIL. Nice strawman. Schools aren't supposed to teach ANY side, that is unless you consider literacy or analytical thinking a "side". Schools teach English, Math, Civics (workings of government - purely fact based), History (dates, events, etc. which are highly scrutinized so as to keep bias to a minimum - you may have a bit of an arugment there). , and Science. However, you claim the fairness doctrine would be the death of talk radio, but in the interest of "fairness" many are trying to push ID in science classrooms. So, by your logic, fairness is the death of science.
Anyways, my point is that it is not a valid comparison. 
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,992
- 96
- 91
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
-snip-
In many places, yes. However, in more densely populated areas, the incentive for any and every organization, political or otherwise is too great. These regulations prevent "anyone and everyone" from spamming the airwaves. This is why licenses are available at a cost - that cost being public service and monetary conpensation.
This is true, but that isn't what the fairness doctrine deals with. It deals with politics and news - information which determines the direction of our society as a whole. A balanced debate between multiple viewpoints is imperative for a democracy to function.
As Potter Stewart put it, "I may not be able to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
They shouldn't. There is a very discernible difference between comedy/political satire, op-ed/debate/opinion, and actual news. (although the lines between those last two sections are getting dangerously blurred as of late). West Wing, SNL, Boston Legal, etc. clearly fall under the first category. Limbaugh, Orielly, Olbermann, Frankin, etc. clearly fall under the second. The third is getting harder and harder to find, but I guess you could say it is anything that is "just the facts". ("Info-tainment" FTL) The fairness doctrine only is supposed to apply to 2 (when it gets blatantly out of hand) and mainly 3.
Edit: I fail at quoting properly.
That doesn't sound like you are interested in fairness at all, just going after specific people and not the idea of presenting political discourse.
I can produce and hour long episode of West Wing promoting gay marriage, and showing how dumb the argument is of the other side. Presenting conservatives as idiots and morons who can't defend themselves. Be seen by millions of people over the public airwaves - but it wouldn't count? In reality it would count, because over half the people who saw it would complain and channel would have to allow a rebuttal or fear fines from the FCC.
Boston Legal presents current news items from a liberal view point, with the conservatives opinion portrayed as idiotic. It has a very one sided political point of view that would qualify it for the fairness doctrine.
People just assume the fairness doctrine would affect conservative talk radio, it wouldn't. Anything that promotes ANY political or social idea broadcast over the airwaves would have to allow for its rebuttal, period. If shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report were on broadcast they would be neutered, and quickly. Because of the dissenting view points they would have to allow to 'be fair.'
What would be easier: toning down their political pieces, or providing air time? Guess which one is cheaper, guess which one the profit orientated broadcast companies will choose.
And the worse part is who decides what that dissenting view point is? In the end a government bureaucrat. That is the last person i want deciding what kind of political discourse gets heard.
All the fairness doctrine would do is make the airwaves a lot more bland, and a less lot interesting. Which would be fair to who?
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,992
- 96
- 91
Well, as I said before, it is pretty clear that Boston Legal and West Wing were purely entertainment. Sure, they can express political views, but they don't pretend to be a place for real debate and/or news reporting to occur. You seem to be missing my point there. I don't want to "go after specific people" as you claim, just allow others to have a foot in the door so they aren't completely shut out.
The FCC should show some backbone and not cave into every request of bias without fully investigating it. The number of callers complaining shouldn't matter if they are WRONG. Shows that aren't direct debates, political opinion speeches, news items, etc. would be exempt from this kind of "rebuttal". You seem to be confusing a station "allowing" time for a rebuttal and the station allowing for any party that wants to rebut, the chance to buy equal airtime to do so at the same rate. Besides, the government isn't supposed to decide who represents the dissenting view. Any party that disagrees and wants to pony up the resources for the airtime should be allowed to. No government beurocrat decision there.
Besides, if you are concerned about for-profit boradcast companies having to make a decision to either tone down their political opinion pieces or provide air time, they are still allowed to raise their rates for purchasing airtime, as long as they do so equally for all groups. Heck, you could even make a business case that INCREASING their political content would be better for them as opposition groups would be all the more willing to pay for such a rebuttal. Purely news coverage is a bit different as they are required to do so in a non-biased manner, and this is part of their community service for obtaining the license.
Rush and his ilk will be fine. They were on the air many years while this doctrine was still in place by the FCC. There is plenty of precedent about the fairness doctrine not killing off political discourse. They prospered. If anything, since the demise of the fairness doctrine and the Clear-Channelization/consolidation of media companies, the airwaves have become dangerously homogenized. I think it is time for a return.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New Apple SoC - M1 - For lower end Macs - Geekbench 5 single-core >1700- Started by Eug
- Replies: 2K
-
Question Speculation: RDNA2 + CDNA Architectures thread- Started by uzzi38
- Replies: 6K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 12K
-
Question Intel i7 CPU: Engineering Sample vs. "T" model? Need to match or beat a Ryzen 3600!- Started by AnitaPeterson
- Replies: 21
-
Question 'Ampere'/Next-gen gaming uarch speculation thread
- Started by Ottonomous
- Replies: 5K
Facebook
Twitter