Fairness Doctrine

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger

By the way, while I find your sky-is-falling predictions entertaining, you continue to ignore the FACT that the Fairness Doctrine worked for years without your doomsday scenarios ever coming to pass. You need to trash your crystal ball and start learning a little history.

You have totally ignored how radio operated under the fairness doctrine. There is more debate, more ideas, more opinion on the air now then there was 30 years ago. I can list off the top of my head a dozen political talk radio hosts on the air today all with audiences in the millions.</end quote></div>
Which first, has a lot less to do with the 'fairness doctrine' than with the hyper-organization and funding of right-wing political groups now versus then.

And second, don't forget the huge increase in polarization in the nation politically. Yay.

And third, note the quality of the discussion programs during the fairness doctrine versus the garbage now of the Michael Savages and Glenn Becks.

>Can name the top talk radio person during the fairness doctrine?

For one, Edward R. Murrow (until 1959, 10 years after the fairness doctrine started), and unless you're insane, you can see how he's incomparably better than your poster boy Rush.


Times change, and you are making specious cause and effect claims.

Drive-in theatres have all but disappeared during the same period, but it's not any government policy involved. Things change for other reasons.

The right wing has skyrocketed in its organization, from the mail-list development of the 60's to the religious right organization of the 80's to the corporatism and 'K Street project'.

Right-wing talk radio is one part of that movement, not something you have shown is linked to the 'fairness doctrine'.

And given the terrible level of brainwashing and ignorance today, the huge growth in right-wing radio can be argued to be bad for the nation.

The market isn't the last word; if it were, we would't need laws to have seat belts in cars and to outlaw crack cocaine.

 

[theeedude]

The only debate on talk radio now is between the host and a strawman of the other side that he puts up.

 

[shrumpage]

Would you classify Edward R. Murrow as a political commentator or a newscaster? After readying his history he seems more of a reporter. Which I'm sure he did good work but he wouldn't have been affected by the Fairness doctrine.

Just like Howard Stern wasn't affected by it. Just shows/people who would comment on politics.

And third, note the quality of the discussion programs during the fairness doctrine versus the garbage now of the Michael Savages and Glenn Becks.

This I Believe is still heard on the air, so that quality is still there. You just have more choices.


Personally i can't stand Savage - but you just reinforced my point:

"You don't know what is best, I do!"

And we aren't talking public safety, such as seat belts and drug use. We are talking about...well talk. Ideas, discussion, view points.

unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.

 

[shrumpage]

From PBS

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In 1949, the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as "public trustees" and, as such, responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on these issues.

Later, in 1967, two corollary doctrines were added. The first was the political editorial rule, requiring that if a station editorialized either for or against a candidate for public office, the station had to notify the disfavored candidate within 24 hours and allow him/her to reply to the editorial; the second was the personal attack rule, which states that when a person or group's character or integrity is impugned during the discussion of a controversial issue, the station must notify the person within one week, and offer a reasonable time for response.

By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.

As this was happening, Congress passed a bill to make the fairness doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. In 2000, when the FCC failed to justify the two remaining corollary rules, the political editorial rule and the personal attack rule were repealed. </end quote></div>

Once again - Fairness doctrine limited discussion and talk.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Would you classify Edward R. Murrow as a political commentator or a newscaster? After readying his history he seems more of a reporter. Which I'm sure he did good work but he wouldn't have been affected by the Fairness doctrine.

There was a different culture then; you can't quite say the reporters were 'just reporters', when the top reporters of the day, like Murrow in the 50's or Cronkite in the 60's, had a big impact on certain issues - Murrow helping to turn the tide on McCarthyism (as shown in the recent movie on the topic), or Cronkite having a big effect on the national opinion on Viet Nam (leading LBJ to comment, when you have lost Cronkite, you lost the nation).

But it wasn't a culture of freaks like Ann Coulter or the other irresponsible loudmouths named previously.

Just like Howard Stern wasn't affected by it. Just shows/people who would comment on politics.

Right, because *the ownership of media gives great power to the owners politically*, and when they use the public airwaves, the idea is not to give them *so* much power over citizens. That's why the Supreme Court said in its 1969 decision that the issue was balancing the rights of the few owners versus the interests of the public. It's not enough, and they knew this, to say 'let the market sort it out'.

"And third, note the quality of the discussion programs during the fairness doctrine versus the garbage now of the Michael Savages and Glenn Becks."

This I Believe is still heard on the air, so that quality is still there. You just have more choices.

No, the quality is not still there - now it's degraded to the garbage mentioned.

Personally i can't stand Savage - but you just reinforced my point:

"You don't know what is best, I do!"

This is more free market ideology, not common sense; I guess Pepsi is a better choice for kids to drink than fruit juice, if the market shows Pepsi outselling juice.

We're not talking about the Director of Tyranny replacing Michael Savage with Phil Donahue by government order, we're talking about balancing the content or propaganda.

And we aren't talking public safety, such as seat belts and drug use. We are talking about...well talk. Ideas, discussion, view points.

It's frustrating when people miss the point so terribly. The point had nothing to do with whether the issue is public safety. It had to do with whether the market is all that matters.

It's not, whether on public safety issues, or the use of public airwaves.

unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.

Fox is anything but 'open', your point is absurd. Try doing an hour on Fix with union leaders or Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn and see how open it is.

The issue is simple, you are blind to the bias and control and limits of the power of media ownership, and so your view of free speech is warped by that.

Why don't you go read one of the many excellent books on the topic of how political speech is harmed by the concentrated corporate ownership of the media, such as Ben Bagdikian's classic, and then we'll talk about your 'discussing politics openly and freely'. Would you like me to recommend a book about examples of the corporate ownership stifling critical stories? OK, "Into the Buzzsaw". Will you read it? I'd put the odds under 1%.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Would you classify Edward R. Murrow as a political commentator or a newscaster? After readying his history he seems more of a reporter. Which I'm sure he did good work but he wouldn't have been affected by the Fairness doctrine.

There was a different culture then; you can't quite say the reporters were 'just reporters', when the top reporters of the day, like Murrow in the 50's or Cronkite in the 60's, had a big impact on certain issues - Murrow helping to turn the tide on McCarthyism (as shown in the recent movie on the topic), or Cronkite having a big effect on the national opinion on Viet Nam (leading LBJ to comment, when you have lost Cronkite, you lost the nation).

But it wasn't a culture of freaks like Ann Coulter or the other irresponsible loudmouths named previously.

I"m confused here: Its okay for Murrow and Cronkite to influence politics and national opinion, but Rush and Savage can't? Isn't that a double standard.

Or was it wrong for Murrow and Cronkite to do that?

Have these 'freaks' brought discussion to the issues?
have these 'freaks' got people talking?
Have these 'freaks' gotten more people involved with voting and politics?

I'd say yes - and those are all good things.

Why are you mentioning Ann? She is a writer. I don't recall her having a radio or tv show, or are you lumping all people that need to be balanced because you don't like their view point? Or do you think her writing needs to be balanced by her publisher?

Just like Howard Stern wasn't affected by it. Just shows/people who would comment on politics.

Right, because *the ownership of media gives great power to the owners politically*, and when they use the public airwaves, the idea is not to give them *so* much power over citizens. That's why the Supreme Court said in its 1969 decision that the issue was balancing the rights of the few owners versus the interests of the public. It's not enough, and they knew this, to say 'let the market sort it out'.

But the fairness doctrine doesn't deal with corperate ownership, it deals with what the person behind the mic says.

If you want to say a corp can't own more then X% of stations in a market, fine. But we are actually having the government regulate political content on the air.

"And third, note the quality of the discussion programs during the fairness doctrine versus the garbage now of the Michael Savages and Glenn Becks."

This I Believe is still heard on the air, so that quality is still there. You just have more choices.

No, the quality is not still there - now it's degraded to the garbage mentioned.[/quote]

Opinion. I think most music is crap on the radio. But i'm not demanding a station play 1 rock song, then rap song, 1 folk, 1 country, 1 alt rock, 1 emo, 1 latin, etc to balance out their play lists i do what every other person does when they hear something on the radio the don't like.

I change the station, or turn it off. I don't go and demand the government to intervine.

Personally i can't stand Savage - but you just reinforced my point:

"You don't know what is best, I do!"

This is more free market ideology, not common sense; I guess Pepsi is a better choice for kids to drink than fruit juice, if the market shows Pepsi outselling juice.

We're not talking about the Director of Tyranny replacing Michael Savage with Phil Donahue by government order, we're talking about balancing the content or propaganda.

But you are! If you don't follow these 'balance' guidelines your out! WHO DECIDES WHAT IS BALANCED? Some government buercrat who gets a compliant from a listener, then investgates, then decides if the hour was properly 'balanced.' If it wasn't fine.

What radio manager would want to worry about jumping through those hoops?

And we aren't talking public safety, such as seat belts and drug use. We are talking about...well talk. Ideas, discussion, view points.

It's frustrating when people miss the point so terribly. The point had nothing to do with whether the issue is public safety. It had to do with whether the market is all that matters.

It's not, whether on public safety issues, or the use of public airwaves.

You brough up government safety issues, i.e. seatbelts and drugs laws.

unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.

Fox is anything but 'open', your point is absurd. Try doing an hour on Fix with union leaders or Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn and see how open it is.

The issue is simple, you are blind to the bias and control and limits of the power of media ownership, and so your view of free speech is warped by that.

I'm not blind to it, I'm complete aware of it! I can't stand Rush, Savage, O'reily, Etc. I know that they are conservative, i know if they say something I don't have to worry about a hidden agenda, because its not hidden. Its coming from a view point of the right.

I also know they are not reporters. I know that they dispense opinion - not fact.

I also know that they will bring things to the nation's attention.

Remember when O'Reily criticized the Red Cross's CEO? And some of their practices. Do i think he got carried away, ya. But it did make me think about what type of charity i donate money too.

Why don't you go read one of the many excellent books on the topic of how political speech is harmed by the concentrated corporate ownership of the media, such as Ben Bagdikian's classic, and then we'll talk about your 'discussing politics openly and freely'. Would you like me to recommend a book about examples of the corporate ownership stifling critical stories? OK, "Into the Buzzsaw". Will you read it? I'd put the odds under 1%.

Once again - are you upset with the content or corporate control of the airwaves? If you don't like the later, i'm fine with that. Like i said, can support limiting a corperation from owning X amount of a market.


But that is not what you are asking for.

You are asking for government to regulate political content on the airwaves.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

But it wasn't a culture of freaks like Ann Coulter or the other irresponsible loudmouths named previously.

You just killed your whole argument. I don't like Ann Coulter, but she has a right to express her opinion. I don't like Bill Maher, but he has a right to express his opinion. Barbara Streissand makes me want to slit my wrists, but she has a right to express her opinion. Rush Limbaugh is obnoxious but he has a right to express his opinion.

Hurling insults at people you disagree with is your right. Shutting them up is not.

The fairness doctrine dictates speech. Plain and simple. The market chooses what it listens to, watches or reads. Air America proved that. Alan Colms has proved that. Other syndicated talk jocks have proven this point also.

Book buyers have proven this concept as well. Sure, Coulter sells books. So does Obama, Clinton (Hill and Bill), Newt, Zell, Morris, Woodward, etc...

But lets face it, this is about talk radio and the success of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage... And the failure of Air America.

Irrespective of the politics of the people who own radio stations, the bottom line is listeners. If you don't have 'em... you have no business. Forcing content on the air that nobody wants to listen to is 1984 at its finest. This is the fairness doctrine.

 

[theeedude]

I will say some good things about right wing talk radio. It's radicalizing the Republican base so much as to make them a permanent minority party. Just look at the immigration issue. They just lost another generation of Hispanic voters, the fastest growing voter block, and put a wedge between the ideologue and the business wing of the Republican party. Plus they set up so many litmus tests on the candidates that it almost guarantees that no moderate gets the support of the base and the nomination, and makes it a lot more difficult for the nominee in the general election. So in that sense, maybe we shouldn't hurry with this fairness doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if GOP's big business handlers would be the ones who want to reign in talk radio in a few years. An army of useful idiots is nice to have if they help your candidates win elections, but what if they alienate moderates and help elect liberals who are bad for business? Then they are costing you money, and that's a problem.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234

But it wasn't a culture of freaks like Ann Coulter or the other irresponsible loudmouths named previously.

</end quote></div>

You just killed your whole argument.

Not even scratched.

I don't like Ann Coulter, but she has a right to express her opinion. I don't like Bill Maher, but he has a right to express his opinion. Barbara Streissand makes me want to slit my wrists, but she has a right to express her opinion. Rush Limbaugh is obnoxious but he has a right to express his opinion.

Hurling insults at people you disagree with is your right. Shutting them up is not.

The only one who said anyything about any of those people not having the right to express their opinion, even Coulter, is you.

The discussion for that comment was about whether there were any well known commentators during the era of the fairness doctrine, and I contrasted them to Coulter.

I'm disappointed in other Americans that her books sell more than 10 copies; I am not calling for preventing her from having free speech.

The fairness doctrine dictates speech. Plain and simple. The market chooses what it listens to, watches or reads. Air America proved that. Alan Colms has proved that. Other syndicated talk jocks have proven this point also.

You just are not following the discussion, and I see no point in repeating it.

Irrespective of the politics of the people who own radio stations, the bottom line is listeners. If you don't have 'em... you have no business. Forcing content on the air that nobody wants to listen to is 1984 at its finest. This is the fairness doctrine.

Funny how the fairness doctrine was popular for decades when in place, and passed by the congress when overturned 2-1 on a technicality by two radical judges (Bork and Scalia).

In fact, the fairness doctrine itself is largely misunderstood, including in this thread. Here's a good article.

Excerpt:

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn?t require that the balance of a station?s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine?s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren?t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters? First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: ?There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.? In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: ?The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public?s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters? rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.?

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: ?Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,? was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. ?If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,? Schwartzman told Extra!, ?then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.? But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response ?could be as much as five to one,? said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I don't see them taking away anything...NOBODY is proposing restricting what Rush Limbaugh says on the radio, it's just a proposal to insure that he's not the ONLY person on the air.

So it's affirmative action for liberals?

 

[shrumpage]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)

And administration using laws to stiffle the voice of the opposition? Good thing it was in the name of fairness!

FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.)

FCC even admits that it had the opposite affect!

pbs.org

By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.

Same issue, same type of law but only applied to newspapers, in florida:

Justice Burger noted, however, that the law ?exacts a penalty on the basis of the content? of the paper. The penalty would be the time, materials, and newspaper space required to publish a candidate's reply. As a result, ?editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy. Therefore?political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced.?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: shrumpage


This illistrates what i don't like about liberalism, its the thinking: "you don't know what is best for you, we do!" Millions of people listen to talk radio, they like it, they tune in everyday.

But these people don't know what is best for them to listen too, the government must decide.

But its "fair"......right?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: shrumpage



unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.

That is *exactly* what he feels.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is more free market ideology, not common sense; I guess Pepsi is a better choice for kids to drink than fruit juice, if the market shows Pepsi outselling juice.
</end quote></div>

You heard it here folks. To the typical liberal, your average AM radio listening Americans are just "kids" without common sense.......

Edit and slightly OT......only a moron would believe that today's typical high fructose corn syrup laden fruit juices are any better than Pepsi....

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I will say some good things about right wing talk radio. It's radicalizing the Republican base so much as to make them a permanent minority party. Just look at the immigration issue. They just lost another generation of Hispanic voters, the fastest growing voter block, and put a wedge between the ideologue and the business wing of the Republican party. Plus they set up so many litmus tests on the candidates that it almost guarantees that no moderate gets the support of the base and the nomination, and makes it a lot more difficult for the nominee in the general election. So in that sense, maybe we shouldn't hurry with this fairness doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if GOP's big business handlers would be the ones who want to reign in talk radio in a few years. An army of useful idiots is nice to have if they help your candidates win elections, but what if they alienate moderates and help elect liberals who are bad for business? Then they are costing you money, and that's a problem.

You can say the same thing about liberals and the internet. If fact I think it is even worse for them. Was it Dailykos or moveon.org that said 'we run the Democrat Party'?
Talk radio has a far broader range of ideas than the far left web sites.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: shrumpage
unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.

That is *exactly* what he feels.

As with most things from the Bush camp, that is exactly backwards. I've finally realized the reason we're making no progress in this discussion is because we're addressing the wrong issue. It's not that the right fears being silenced. The issue is that with a Fairness Doctrine restored, the right is concerned the left will now be heard.

As it stands today the right has a safe bastion of right-wing indoctrination, where their faithful can gather and have their biases and ignorance reinforced 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. They blissfully listen to the tales of the evil Saddam attacking America on 9/11, how much safer America is under the steady hand of GWB, and how the evil 'commie-libs" hate America, hate our troops, blame America first, want to silence Rush, and all the other brainless propaganda we hear parroted here.

It's not surprising that blowhards like Limbaugh don't want to share their soapboxes on the public ariwaves. Their success is due, in part, to the fact that so many Americans accept their misdsdirection and outright lies as truth. If stations were required to offer more balanced programming, these people might accidently learn they're being duped. Their cocoon of ignorant bliss might crack, just a little, letting in just enough light to rouse a few of them ... and then a few more ... and then more ... and pretty soon they'll be laughing at Limbaugh, et al, just like the rest of us.

That is what the opponents of fairness really fear: being exposed as frauds.

 

[Corn]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Corn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.</end quote></div>
That is *exactly* what he feels.</end quote></div>
As with most things from the Bush camp, that is exactly backwards. I've finally realized the reason we're making no progress in this discussion is because we're addressing the wrong issue. It's not that the right fears being silenced. The issue is that with a Fairness Doctrine restored, the right is concerned the left will now be heard.

Blah blah blah......

That is what the opponents of fairness really fear: being exposed as frauds.
</end quote></div>

What you lefty hypocrites fail to understand is that freedom of speech isn't simply having the right to say what you want. Its also not having to be *forced* by the government to say something you might not want to say. Don't you *ever* whine about Bush "shredding the constitution" if you don't want to be called out as the hypocritical fraud you are.

As if the left doesn't have their safe bastions of left-wing indoctrination, where their faithful can gather and have their biases and ignorance reinforced 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Yes, those places might not proliferate on your AM dial but they certainly do exist. You libtards are nothing if not humorous.

No one but the lefties are whining about the need to impose the the so-called "fairness doctrine". That tells me all I need to know about who is actually *afraid*.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
Talk radio has a far broader range of ideas than the far left web sites.

Duh. Imagine that, "far left web sites" promote far left ideas. That's like saying your average Pepsi machine has a far broader range of beverages than a kitchen sink. How about at least pretending to offer an apples-to-apples comparison? Even you aren't so dishonest to suggest there isn't a full spectrum of ideas on the Internet ... are you? For every Moveon.org there is a Free Republic.


By the way, I'll note you've avoided my reply to your last post ... again.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I will say some good things about right wing talk radio. It's radicalizing the Republican base so much as to make them a permanent minority party. Just look at the immigration issue. They just lost another generation of Hispanic voters, the fastest growing voter block, and put a wedge between the ideologue and the business wing of the Republican party. Plus they set up so many litmus tests on the candidates that it almost guarantees that no moderate gets the support of the base and the nomination, and makes it a lot more difficult for the nominee in the general election. So in that sense, maybe we shouldn't hurry with this fairness doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if GOP's big business handlers would be the ones who want to reign in talk radio in a few years. An army of useful idiots is nice to have if they help your candidates win elections, but what if they alienate moderates and help elect liberals who are bad for business? Then they are costing you money, and that's a problem.</end quote></div>
You can say the same thing about liberals and the internet. If fact I think it is even worse for them. Was it Dailykos or moveon.org that said 'we run the Democrat Party'?
Talk radio has a far broader range of ideas than the far left web sites.

Dailykos and moveon say they run the Democrat party, but AM radio really does it.

I doubt blogs are anywhere near as powerful with Democrat base as AM radio is with Republican base. I personally am a liberal who does not read either moveon or dailykos, or du or any other liberal blog for that matter. And I am a computer savvy guy in mid 20s, so I doubt the older Democrats are really that much into it. I spend a lot more time keeping tabs on what the other side is saying by listening to AM radio, watching Fox, and reading Free Republic. And I see how even moderate Republicans are savaged on AM radio and Free Republic. But be it as it may, both AM radio and blogs serve to polarize the base and alienate moderates, and AM radio is definitely doing that for the right.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Dailykos and moveon say they run the Democrat party, but AM radio really does it.

I doubt blogs are anywhere near as powerful with Democrat base as AM radio is with Republican base. I personally am a liberal who does not read either moveon or dailykos, or du or any other liberal blog for that matter. And I am a computer savvy guy in mid 20s, so I doubt the older Democrats are really that much into it. I spend a lot more time keeping tabs on what the other side is saying by listening to AM radio, watching Fox, and reading Free Republic. And I see how even moderate Republicans are savaged on AM radio and Free Republic. But be it as it may, both AM radio and blogs serve to polarize the base and alienate moderates, and AM radio is definitely doing that for the right.

Hahahahahah! I love anecdotal evidence presented by the typical self-important lefty. Not only does the lefty know better than the non-lefty what's good for the non-lefty, but the lefty evidently speaks for all other "smart" lefties. This is fantastic entertainment! In addition, anyone (conservative and even moreso liberal) who wastes their time listening to Rush is a moron. You listen to Rush because he's entertaining--you might think you are doing it to learn something about "the enemy", but really you just like to be angry and ridicule him. I would *never* take that away from you.

As far as your last point I ask: So what?

Does the constitution state that free speech must not polarize or alienate? Go on lefties, show me. Don't quote the so-called "fairness doctrine"; rules set up by lefty socalists for lefty socalists.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn[/i]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: shrumpage
unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.

That is *exactly* what he feels.

As with most things from the Bush camp, that is exactly backwards. I've finally realized the reason we're making no progress in this discussion is because we're addressing the wrong issue. It's not that the right fears being silenced. The issue is that with a Fairness Doctrine restored, the right is concerned the left will now be heard.

As it stands today the right has a safe bastion of right-wing indoctrination, where their faithful can gather and have their biases and ignorance reinforced 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. They blissfully listen to the tales of the evil Saddam attacking America on 9/11, how much safer America is under the steady hand of GWB, and how the evil 'commie-libs" hate America, hate our troops, blame America first, want to silence Rush, and all the other brainless propaganda we hear parroted here.

It's not surprising that blowhards like Limbaugh don't want to share their soapboxes on the public ariwaves. Their success is due, in part, to the fact that so many Americans accept their misdsdirection and outright lies as truth. If stations were required to offer more balanced programming, these people might accidently learn they're being duped. Their cocoon of ignorant bliss might crack, just a little, letting in just enough light to rouse a few of them ... and then a few more ... and then more ... and pretty soon they'll be laughing at Limbaugh, et al, just like the rest of us.

That is what the opponents of fairness really fear: being exposed as frauds.

What you lefty hypocrites fail to understand is that freedom of speech isn't simply having the right to say what you want. Its also not having to be *forced* by the government to say something you might not want to say.

Backwards again, I see. Nobody is being forced to say anything. Businesses who want a license to profit from the use of public airwaves will be required to provide balanced coverage of issues. The government is not dictating who gets a microphone or what they are allowed to say. That is the truth no matter how many time you and PJ cry otherwise.

It is the right, on the other hand, that is de facto trying to silence the left on AM. As I said (and you evaded), the real concern is that your cocoon of blissful right-wing ignorance requires a monopoly on speech. It might not survive in a market of competing ideas.

Don't you *ever* whine about Bush "shredding the constitution" if you don't want to be called out as the hypocritical fraud you are.

"Lefty hypocrites." "Hypocritical fraud." Did you learn a new name on the playground this morning, or are you just off your meds?

No one but the lefties are whining about the need to impose the the so-called "fairness doctrine". That tells me all I need to know about who is actually *afraid*.

You're on a roll. Once again, exactly backwards. I doubt most Americans are even aware of the proposal, or would see balanced content as a problem if they were. After all, it's fundamentally fair and sensible, something most Americans believe in. It is the right, especially the professional blowhards like Limbaugh, who are hysterical about this, with all their gloom and doom theatrics. Some of them are even so shrill as to compare this simple measure to ensure the public airwaves are used to serve the public interest with BushCo's blatant shredding of the Constitution. It's comical watching them run around in circles, clucking in terror and flapping their arms, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Corn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp

Dailykos and moveon say they run the Democrat party, but AM radio really does it.

I doubt blogs are anywhere near as powerful with Democrat base as AM radio is with Republican base. I personally am a liberal who does not read either moveon or dailykos, or du or any other liberal blog for that matter. And I am a computer savvy guy in mid 20s, so I doubt the older Democrats are really that much into it. I spend a lot more time keeping tabs on what the other side is saying by listening to AM radio, watching Fox, and reading Free Republic. And I see how even moderate Republicans are savaged on AM radio and Free Republic. But be it as it may, both AM radio and blogs serve to polarize the base and alienate moderates, and AM radio is definitely doing that for the right.</end quote></div>

Hahahahahah! I love anecdotal evidence presented by the typical self-important lefty. Not only does the lefty know better than the non-lefty what's good for the non-lefty, but the lefty evidently speaks for all other "smart" lefties. This is fantastic entertainment! In addition, anyone (conservative and even moreso liberal) who wastes their time listening to Rush is a moron. You listen to Rush because he's entertaining--you might think you are doing it to learn something about "the enemy", but really you just like to be angry and ridicule him. I would *never* take that away from you.

As far as your last point I ask: So what?

Does the constitution state that free speech must not polarize or alienate? Go on lefties, show me. Don't quote the so-called "fairness doctrine"; rules set up by lefty socalists for lefty socalists.

Leftys were right on Iraq, Rush and righties were wrong.

 

[Corn]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Corn[/i]
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Corn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
unless you feel discussing politics openly and freely, is dangerous.</end quote></div>
That is *exactly* what he feels.</end quote></div>
As with most things from the Bush camp, that is exactly backwards. I've finally realized the reason we're making no progress in this discussion is because we're addressing the wrong issue. It's not that the right fears being silenced. The issue is that with a Fairness Doctrine restored, the right is concerned the left will now be heard.

As it stands today the right has a safe bastion of right-wing indoctrination, where their faithful can gather and have their biases and ignorance reinforced 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. They blissfully listen to the tales of the evil Saddam attacking America on 9/11, how much safer America is under the steady hand of GWB, and how the evil 'commie-libs" hate America, hate our troops, blame America first, want to silence Rush, and all the other brainless propaganda we hear parroted here.

It's not surprising that blowhards like Limbaugh don't want to share their soapboxes on the public ariwaves. Their success is due, in part, to the fact that so many Americans accept their misdsdirection and outright lies as truth. If stations were required to offer more balanced programming, these people might accidently learn they're being duped. Their cocoon of ignorant bliss might crack, just a little, letting in just enough light to rouse a few of them ... and then a few more ... and then more ... and pretty soon they'll be laughing at Limbaugh, et al, just like the rest of us.

That is what the opponents of fairness really fear: being exposed as frauds.</end quote></div>
What you lefty hypocrites fail to understand is that freedom of speech isn't simply having the right to say what you want. Its also not having to be *forced* by the government to say something you might not want to say.</end quote></div>
Backwards again, I see. Nobody is being forced to say anything. Businesses who want a license to profit from the use of public airwaves will be required to provide balanced coverage of issues. The government is not dictating who gets a microphone or what they are allowed to say. That is the truth no matter how many time you and PJ cry otherwise.

It is the right, on the other hand, that is de facto trying to silence the left on AM. As I said (and you evaded), the real concern is that your cocoon of blissful right-wing ignorance requires a monopoly on speech. It might not survive in a market of competing ideas.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Don't you *ever* whine about Bush "shredding the constitution" if you don't want to be called out as the hypocritical fraud you are.</end quote></div>
"Lefty hypocrites." "Hypocritical fraud." Did you learn a new name on the playground this morning, or are you just off your meds?


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>No one but the lefties are whining about the need to impose the the so-called "fairness doctrine". That tells me all I need to know about who is actually *afraid*.</end quote></div>
You're on a roll. Once again, exactly backwards. I doubt most Americans are even aware of the proposal, or would see balanced content as a problem if they were. After all, it's fundamentally fair and sensible, something most Americans believe in. It is the right, especially the professional blowhards like Limbaugh, who are hysterical about this, with all their gloom and doom theatrics. Some of them are even so shrill as to compare this simple measure to ensure the public airwaves are used to serve the public interest with BushCo's blatant shredding of the Constitution. It's comical watching them run around in circles, clucking in terror and flapping their arms, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

</end quote></div>

Oh, I see, since AM radio stations are required to be licensed becuase they use "public airwaves", freedom of speech does not apply. Don't be a coward Stinkfinger, just say it.

 

[Corn]

"you must say......or you can't" is not freedom of speech. No matter how altruistic your intentions. With the invention of digital radio (free public broadcast), the bandwidth is (for all practical purposes) essentially limitless. Thus the "scarcity" excuse is rendered moot. Not a single market will ever see anything approacing capacity ever being hit.

The Lefties are afraid of AM talk radio, they want to take freedom of speech away from the broadcasters--this is not backwards, this is a simple matter of fact. Keep lying to yourself.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn
Oh, I see, since AM radio stations are required to be licensed becuase they use "public airwaves", freedom of speech does not apply. Don't be a coward Stinkfinger, just say it.

Vintage Corn. That brings back the "good old days" when your only contribution was infantile personal attacks. 'Atta boy, way to shred my argument. Guess I'll just have to leave P&N in shame, having been decisively "pwned" by my betters.

No, wait. That would be you. (There's that backwards thing again.) If you have nothing intelligent to contribute, why don't you crawl back to your lame neffing in OT with the other third-graders. I have already dsicussed the ins and outs of freedom of speech and public airwaves in considerable detail. Perhaps you can check it out once you learn to read.

Toodles.