Fairness Doctrine

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>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.</end quote></div>
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.

Ooooooo, you've discussed the ins and outs have you. Who appointed you the final arbiter?

Hey, don't cell and cordless phones operate on the "public airwaves". Think the fairness doctrine should apply to private conversation on those scarce "public airwaves" as well?

Whatever argument you've made is, like you, a joke.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
who does Clear Channel answer to?</end quote></div>

Republicans

Wrong answer there dude. Clear Channel answer to the mighty dollar. Should the time come when, say Limbaugh, is no longer producing, I have no doubt the company would dump him without thinking twice. Clear Channel carried Jerry Springer from 9 to 12 in the morning, Mon thru Fri to present the liberals talking point. As far I know, he is no longer yapping. Get the picture?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: 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.

Ooooooo, you've discussed the ins and outs have you. Who appointed you the final arbiter?

:roll:

Let me try to guide you through this step by step. You attacked my position by saying, "Oh, I see, since AM radio stations are required to be licensed because they use 'public airwaves', freedom of speech does not apply." In order to respond to this attack, I need to explain how my actual position does not match your straw man. I have already done so, however, in previous posts. Therefore, instead of repeating myself for the tenth time, I pointed this out.

I did not suggest in any way that I am the final arbiter. I merely observed that you failed to read the thread. If you still disagree with my position re. broadcast and free speech after reading my earlier posts, you are welcome to present your contradictory views in a reply to one of them.

Hey, don't cell and cordless phones operate on the "public airwaves". Think the fairness doctrine should apply to private conversation on those scarce "public airwaves" as well?

No, because those portions of the broadcast spectrum are licensed for private communications. That usage serves the public interest. A fairness doctrine is only relevant to spectrum licensed for public broadcast.

Whatever argument you've made is, like you, a joke.

Are you drunk or something? You seem incapable of posting anything without including gratuitous and exceedingly lame personal attacks. I thought you finally cleaned up your act, but you seem to have regressed into old habits.

 

[Craig234]

Who is this Corn guy with this idiocy? He really sounds like the worst sort of rightie irrational, just attacking without any logic at times - one minute he's ranting about how the 'self-important lefty' can try to tell the right what's good for them, and the next he makes an entire post just to say how I feel about something (and gets it wrong, of course).

Every time I read these nutty righties, the Doors song comes to me - "his brain was squirming like a toad". They're like teenagers who get a car for the first time and don't realize it's for safe transportation, not proving their (weak) masculinity as they speed and swerve and get loud radios; for them, 'political discussion' is for attacking, not any sensible use.

It's why 'identity politics' works so well on them, the same way that pretty girls sell beer to guys who can't get pretty dates, and people who are insecure about 'status' are suckers for Mercedes' ads reassuring them. They prove something about themself by picking up the right-wing banner and proclaiming how 'strong' they are, done mostly by misrepresenting the left, since the facts are so far from their positions.

That's why stories feminizing democrats have such long legs with them, because they have to think democrats are feminine to get their own 'fix' of feeling like the real men they're not, from the Dukakis tank photo mockery to 'lovely human' Al Gore to the haircuts of Bill Clinton (hollywood, on air force one) and John Edwards ($400).

It's why these discussions with them never get anywhere - they're not rational, this is their 'manhood therapy' to say how wonderful it is to kill the enemy, stop coddling the poor who are to blame for things, and such.

I actually have a theory for it, analgous to Maslow's hierarchy of needs; when their basic needs are met, they're free to fixate on the ego issues; when there was real poverty, as in the Great Depression, it was not a problem for men to agree to policies for the public good, and they did. Out of that spirit in the 30's came the spirit of WWII, which these same righties love to worship today, without realizing its source as a 'care about society' attitude.

In the same way that Americans rationalized the genocide and left theft against natives two centuries ago as dealing with 'savages', and Americans rationalized racism a century ago as dealing with 'an inferior race', righties today rationalize policies to do terribly by groups from middle easterners to the poor here, with ideological excuses.

If this seems a little off-topic, I think there's some latitiude in responding to Corn when he presumes to say how I feel (again - wrongly). He's in here derailing the rational discussion; I think the main points on the fairness doctrine itself have been hit well. Now it's down to repeating them and responding to Corn's "stinkyfinger" level posts.

 

[shrumpage]

Does it bother anyone that past administrations, both parties, has used the fairness doctrine to limit opposition and criticism?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a bogus argument on multiple fronts. It is a case of the government acting in the interests of the public at large rather than the financial interests of a privileged few (oh, the horror!). That's what government is supposed to do. The broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource. It is not at all unreasonable to demand that businesses serve the public interest if they are going to use our airwaves for their profit.

By the way, I think the Fairness Doctrine should apply to ALL broadcast including television. The same rationale applies to both radio and TV.

That is your argument. The supposed scarcity of bandwidth (which doesn't actually exist- 75K watt broadcasters are not entitled to coast to coast coverage) is a bogus argument. Nearly every economic endeavor reqires some sort of license at some point of its operation--public interest should be served at all costs when using "public" intrastructure, right?

AM talk radio is simply a product distributed by "public" airwaves. Not unlike newspapers are also simply a product distributed by means of scarce "public" infrastructure (the gridlock suffered in every metropolitan area proves this truth). I would bet you wouldn't be all that hip to enforcing the fairness doctrine on perodicals and newspapers. Why? Not because of the scarcity of the public resource used to distribute the medium, oh no, but because you would *never* impose your fairness doctrine on left leaning media.

Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.

Sinking in yet?

Unless you also call for "private" print media which use public roads to distribute their product to also adhere to the fairness doctrine than you're a fraud and a hypocrite blowing nothing more than hot air aimed at simply silencing your political opposition.

Lefties taking a page out of the Hugo Chavez playbook, not even original!

Lefty talk radio, like much of their other great ideas, is a complete and total failure. I find this to be quite suprising too, I mean, who wouldn't want to listen to a bunch of girly men whine about Bush (no pun intended), likewise manly women. I personally thought it was riveting conversation.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Who is this Corn guy with this idiocy? He really sounds like the worst sort of rightie irrational, just attacking without any logic at times - one minute he's ranting about how the 'self-important lefty' can try to tell the right what's good for them, and the next he makes an entire post just to say how I feel about something (and gets it wrong, of course).

Every time I read these nutty righties, the Doors song comes to me - "his brain was squirming like a toad". They're like teenagers who get a car for the first time and don't realize it's for safe transportation, not proving their (weak) masculinity as they speed and swerve and get loud radios; for them, 'political discussion' is for attacking, not any sensible use.

It's why 'identity politics' works so well on them, the same way that pretty girls sell beer to guys who can't get pretty dates, and people who are insecure about 'status' are suckers for Mercedes' ads reassuring them. They prove something about themself by picking up the right-wing banner and proclaiming how 'strong' they are, done mostly by misrepresenting the left, since the facts are so far from their positions.

That's why stories feminizing democrats have such long legs with them, because they have to think democrats are feminine to get their own 'fix' of feeling like the real men they're not, from the Dukakis tank photo mockery to 'lovely human' Al Gore to the haircuts of Bill Clinton (hollywood, on air force one) and John Edwards ($400).

It's why these discussions with them never get anywhere - they're not rational, this is their 'manhood therapy' to say how wonderful it is to kill the enemy, stop coddling the poor who are to blame for things, and such.

I actually have a theory for it, analgous to Maslow's hierarchy of needs; when their basic needs are met, they're free to fixate on the ego issues; when there was real poverty, as in the Great Depression, it was not a problem for men to agree to policies for the public good, and they did. Out of that spirit in the 30's came the spirit of WWII, which these same righties love to worship today, without realizing its source as a 'care about society' attitude.

In the same way that Americans rationalized the genocide and left theft against natives two centuries ago as dealing with 'savages', and Americans rationalized racism a century ago as dealing with 'an inferior race', righties today rationalize policies to do terribly by groups from middle easterners to the poor here, with ideological excuses.

If this seems a little off-topic, I think there's some latitiude in responding to Corn when he presumes to say how I feel (again - wrongly). He's in here derailing the rational discussion; I think the main points on the fairness doctrine itself have been hit well. Now it's down to repeating them and responding to Corn's "stinkyfinger" level posts.

I don't remember anyone calling Gore a "lovely human". My nickname for him was RoboGore. The feminization of the "democrat" is simply a by-product of lefty talk radio. I mean, really.

Have a nice day Craig.

 

[piasabird]

You might ask yourself why most talk radio is conservative in nature. Perhaps mainstream media and left-wing newspapers have spread so many lies that people just want to hear the truth. The thing about talk radio is there are a lot of intelligent people wroking for these outfits know how to research the lies behind what any elected official says, right or left. Our elected officials think they can do whatever they want and they do not have to answer to voters, because the media keeps people so uninformed that they do not know what is going on. Talk radio is also making voters smarter and more demanding. They have been taught by talk radio hosts just what to look for and how to spot a line of baloney when they hear it.

Freedom of speech is one of the primary building blocks of democracy. Without freedom of speech how can we celebrate the fourth of July?

The free market has decided that the public does not want to hear the liberal voice. If you dont want to listen you are free to change the channel.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a bogus argument on multiple fronts. It is a case of the government acting in the interests of the public at large rather than the financial interests of a privileged few (oh, the horror!). That's what government is supposed to do. The broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource. It is not at all unreasonable to demand that businesses serve the public interest if they are going to use our airwaves for their profit.

By the way, I think the Fairness Doctrine should apply to ALL broadcast including television. The same rationale applies to both radio and TV.

That is your argument. The supposed scarcity of bandwidth (which doesn't actually exist-

You simply, factually, haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

75K watt broadcasters are not entitled to coast to coast coverage) is a bogus argument.

Indeed it is a bogus argument. It's also a straw man. It doesn't resemble anything I suggested.

Nearly every economic endeavor reqires some sort of license at some point of its operation--public interest should be served at all costs when using "public" intrastructure, right?

AM talk radio is simply a product distributed by "public" airwaves. Not unlike newspapers are also simply a product distributed by means of scarce "public" infrastructure (the gridlock suffered in every metropolitan area proves this truth). I would bet you wouldn't be all that hip to enforcing the fairness doctrine on perodicals and newspapers. Why? Not because of the scarcity of the public resource used to distribute the medium, oh no, but because you would *never* impose your fairness doctrine on left leaning media.

Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.
Public roads.

Sinking in yet?

Unless you also call for "private" print media which use public roads to distribute their product to also adhere to the fairness doctrine than you're a fraud and a hypocrite blowing nothing more than hot air aimed at simply silencing your political opposition.

Lefties taking a page out of the Hugo Chavez playbook, not even original! Corn taking a page out of the Chicken Little playbook. How utterly predictable.

Lefty talk radio, like much of their other great ideas, is a complete and total failure. I find this to be quite suprising too, I mean, who wouldn't want to listen to a bunch of girly men whine about Bush (no pun intended), likewise manly women. I personally thought it was riveting conversation.

Getting desperate, are we? What an absurd comparison! We have, perhaps a few thousand people (owners) who can share broadcast spectrum at any given time. The public roadways, on the other hand, are shared by tens of millions of people simultaneously. Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases. Adding broadcast spectrum is not a practical option. Look at all the gyrations required to move from analog televsions to digital: channels relocated, temporary frequency assignments, and most of all, a whole new consumer infrastructure to receive the new channels. The bottom line is broadcast spectrum is a scarce resource, roads are not.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.

And we have the ability to add liberal talk radio shows if demand increases. Which it hasn't.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You might ask yourself why most talk radio is conservative in nature. Perhaps mainstream media and left-wing newspapers have spread so many lies that people just want to hear the truth. ...

No doubt some of them believe that, though they probably got the idea from conservative talk radio. In any case, if they are tuning to talk radio for truth, they're going to remain blissfully ignorant.

By the way, I'd love to see your list of the "lies" spread by "left-wing newspapers." (Well, except for all the anti-Iraq, pro-war propaganda they obediently spread without questioning its accuracy.)

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jrenz
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.
</end quote></div>

And we have the ability to add liberal talk radio shows if demand increases. Which it hasn't.

/thread

Sorry Bowfinger, I wasn't ignoring your reply to my posts, I have just lost the energy to discuss this with you. You won't see it any other way than you do, and neither of us are changing our minds, so there is really no point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.

And we have the ability to add liberal talk radio shows if demand increases. Which it hasn't.

1) No we don't.
2) It's irrelevant even if we could.
3) Kindly read the thead before repeating diversions we've already discussed.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jrenz
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases. </end quote></div>
And we have the ability to add liberal talk radio shows if demand increases. Which it hasn't.</end quote></div>
1) No we don't.

You're right. Radio can never change. What we have now is what we will always have forever, and it will never change to reflect what people want to hear. It's been the same for 100 years and then some. Nope. It can never change.

2) It's irrelevant even if we could.

Yeah, I guess the heart of this argument is irrelevant to the argument itself.

3) Kindly read the thead before repeating diversions we've already discussed.

Stop dismissing all opposing points as diversions and it wouldn't be necessary. But I guess that cuts to the heart of the argument... your desire to dismiss differing opinions as trash.

 

[JD50]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jrenz
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases. </end quote></div>
And we have the ability to add liberal talk radio shows if demand increases. Which it hasn't.</end quote></div>
1) No we don't.
2) It's irrelevant even if we could.
3) Kindly read the thead before repeating diversions we've already discussed.
</end quote></div>

nvm, Jrenz covered it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.

And we have the ability to add liberal talk radio shows if demand increases. Which it hasn't.

1) No we don't.

You're right. Radio can never change. What we have now is what we will always have forever, and it will never change to reflect what people want to hear. It's been the same for 100 years and then some. Nope. It can never change.

Another lovely straw man. One of the reason I have so little respect for some of you is you seem totally incapable of having an honest, on-topic discussion. I did not say broadcast could never change. In fact, I gave an example of exactly the opposite with analog vs. digital television. Nonetheless, since you are incapable of addressing my real point -- the fact that broadcast spectrum is both limited and scarce -- you invent a bogus position you can attack. Well bully for you, you knocked the stuffing out of your straw man. My hero! I'm sure it was hard work; you should maybe have a cookie and call it a day.

:roll:

2) It's irrelevant even if we could.

Yeah, I guess the heart of this argument is irrelevant to the argument itself.

Except it's not the heart of the argument. It's not even relevant to my argument. If you'd bother to read my earlier posts, you'll find my reasoning. You might then choose to respond to the appropriate post with your own opposing reasoning. That's how we have productive discussions. Since you appear to lack the ambition to read the thread, I assume you'll just invent another bogus issue to attack, and then you'll whine when I point out it is another diversion.

3) Kindly read the thead before repeating diversions we've already discussed.

Stop dismissing all opposing points as diversions and it wouldn't be necessary. But I guess that cuts to the heart of the argument... your desire to dismiss differing opinions as trash.

I don't dismiss all opposing points as diversions, just the ones that are. There are many, many relevant points people have raised that I've addressed directly and in some detail. I'm just bored with addressing the same small set of points over and over again. At least JD50 is rational enough to realize we're just going to have to agree to disagree.



(Edit: For the record, this broken quoting is a real pain in the arse.)

 

[shrumpage]

Some things that bow has failed to address:

1. I have posted quotes from a USSC judge, PBS and the FCC its self which came to the conclusion that instead of promoting discussion, it was actually stifled. These have been ignored.

2. The double standard. Talk radio has to much power?, yet Bow cites Cronkite as swaying national opinion on the Vietnam war, and that this was a good thing. Its okay for Cronkite to do it but Rush to sway opinion? Thats bad.

3. Past administrations have used the fairness doctrine to shut down opposition. Do you think this won't happen again?

4. Talk radio EXPLODED after the fairness doctrine was removed. The market did not stagnant, or shrivel. It got interesting, more and more people listened. We have more on the air then ever before, not bad for a resource deemed 'scarce' 30 years ago - and there are no signs of slowing.

5. Talk Radio has caused more people to get involved. Either for or against issues. It definitely stirred the pot on the immigration bill. And believe it or not - there was a multitude of opinions across the spectrum on it.

6. Why the Hell did you bring up Ann Colter? She wouldn't be affected by this - she doesn't have a radio or TV show. She is just a writer.

7. Corp control vs. Content. You don't like Corps owning everything in a market, fine - i can get on board with that. But you need to separate the two issues. Government regulating ownership is much different then regulating speech and content.

8. I like the show Boston Legal, i don't like the liberal soap boxing, which they do pretty much every episode. I would hate to see shows - even with which i don't agree with - have to have either content removed so not to cause contravesity - or cease to become profitable. Not because of a lack of veiwership - but some one has to pay for that 'balance' time. And if show produces to much "balancing time" it will either be changed or dropped.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Then again, I am also for the third option: charge a special TV tax on every TV sold and have a really good public broadcast system (like the UK's BBC or Germany's ARD/RTL/ZDF) and just freaking report the facts and nothing else. No spin, no commentary. This is what happened. Period. Done. In that sense "We report, you decide" in its purest form is what we should have.

Well we sort of have that with C-SPAN.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
With exception of NPR and other "public" radio stations, they really aren't.

Stations pay tons of money for rights to air, broadcast equipment, programming rights...etc...These are private companies.

Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

Both sides have the opportunity to be heard if the public wants to hear them. Air America failed because nobody wants to hear what they have to say. NO ONE CARES!

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Radio is 20th century garbage that is becoming culturally and politically irrelevant. I don't know a single person under 40 who listens to talk radio. It moves too slow, there are too many long ads, it's not multi-threaded enough.

For the market that is there (mostly middle-aged / old white people) who still listen to that crap, why not let the market decide? Face it, people primarily listen/watch/read what reinforces what they already believe or want to believe. Tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll turn the dial (or read a book, watch a tv show, etc).

To be fair, there are VERY few on the left OR the right that actually open their minds to alternative viewpoints. You see it on here all the time. They believe what they want to believe, and everyone that doesn't agree with them is automatically wrong. We're all guilty of it to some degree or another, after all we're only human. Personally I am very biased about many issues, but I almost always try to give a nod to the opposing view in terms of logical thought and reason. There are almost always valid standpoints to both sides of an argument.

That all said, AM Radio (or any radio format) is CRAP for an effective platform for an exchange of ideas and opinions. It's too slow, it's too one-sided, it just doesn't cut it.

Internet/24hr news FTW. It also helps to have forums like this very one, where each can pretty much have his entire say if he chooses. And reply/link/etc. Of course this will never change the fact that 90% of the people on here are entrenched partisans, but what can you do?

Fairness Doctrine = crap
AM Radio = Irrelevant

Fact: 15,000,000-25,000,000 people per day tune in to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Some things that bow has failed to address:

1. I have posted quotes from a USSC judge, PBS and the FCC its self which came to the conclusion that instead of promoting discussion, it was actually stifled. These have been ignored.

The thing about opinions is everyone has them. In order to address them adequately, I would need to know the culture and agenda of those people at the time their opinions were published. If they're from the Reagan era, for example, it's no wonder there were anti-fairness opinions written since the administration was determined to scrap the regulations. That doesn't make them true.

You also have a bit of a faulty premise. The primary purpose of a fairness doctrine isn't to blindly promote discussion, it's to ensure the discussion that happens is balanced. Yes, I can see how such a requirement might temper the enthusiasm of people who enjoy blowing random BS with no accountability. They might have to actually learn about the topic at hand.

2. The double standard. Talk radio has to much power?, yet Bow cites Cronkite as swaying national opinion on the Vietnam war, and that this was a good thing. Its okay for Cronkite to do it but Rush to sway opinion? Thats bad.

First, I did not cite Cronkite. You're confusing me with someone else.

Second, your point is irrelevant unless you can show CBS (Cronkite's network) did not provide coverage of both sides of the war debate. The goal of a fairness doctrine is to ensure the public hears boths sides of an issue, not preventing broadcasters from being influential. I was a bit young then, but I 'm pretty sure the network news covered both sides, i.e., those who supported the war and those who opposed it. If that was not the case, then there could have been a legitimate basis for filing Fairness complaints.

3. Past administrations have used the fairness doctrine to shut down opposition. Do you think this won't happen again?

I agree it is a legitimate concern, I would would fully support measures to prevent it. What do you suggest?

4. Talk radio EXPLODED after the fairness doctrine was removed. The market did not stagnant, or shrivel. It got interesting, more and more people listened. We have more on the air then ever before, not bad for a resource deemed 'scarce' 30 years ago - and there are no signs of slowing.

I have addressed this at least a couple of time, including in a reply to you IIRC. Correlation does not demonstrate causation. I'd also like to see factual stats supporting your claim.

5. Talk Radio has caused more people to get involved. Either for or against issues. It definitely stirred the pot on the immigration bill. And believe it or not - there was a multitude of opinions across the spectrum on it.

First, unless you have hard facts, it is speculative to credit talk radio with stirring things up. It was also a hot issue on cable and the web. No doubt talk radio contributed to the stirring, but your comment implies it was the main factor.

Second, I'm glad if multiple sides were well-represented in the radio debate. That's exactly what a fairness doctrine is intended to do. Sounds like it wouldn't have inhibited anyone.

6. Why the Hell did you bring up Ann Colter? She wouldn't be affected by this - she doesn't have a radio or TV show. She is just a writer.

Why the hell do you keep attacking me for others' comments? ( ) I didn't mention Coulter either, it was someone else.

7. Corp control vs. Content. You don't like Corps owning everything in a market, fine - i can get on board with that. But you need to separate the two issues. Government regulating ownership is much different then regulating speech and content.

Yes, it is. Care to show me where I suggested otherwise? Both are necessary to ensure public airwaves are used for the overall public good.

8. I like the show Boston Legal, i don't like the liberal soap boxing, which they do pretty much every episode. I would hate to see shows - even with which i don't agree with - have to have either content removed so not to cause contravesity - or cease to become profitable. Not because of a lack of veiwership - but some one has to pay for that 'balance' time. And if show produces to much "balancing time" it will either be changed or dropped.

What, you don't think Denny Crane provides the other side of the story? Sounds just like many of the righties I know.

Just kidding. He's obviously a caricature of the right -- though there are a few people here he seems to be drawn from. (And I have an Aunt who is that rabidly right-wing looney, but that's another story.)

A fairness doctrine cuts both ways. While I think fictional entertainment shows should get a little more slack then (nominally) factual discussion/oration shows, there should still be a general responsibility to present both sides of issues. Each network would have to decide how to adequately meet that requirement, with appropriate oversight (viewer complaints, as one possible example) and enforcement as necessary. I don't think heavy-handed oversight of a fairness doctrine is that important. The important part is putting broadcasters on notice that they are responsible for ensuring balance.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo
With exception of NPR and other "public" radio stations, they really aren't.

Stations pay tons of money for rights to air, broadcast equipment, programming rights...etc...These are private companies.

Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>
Both sides have the opportunity to be heard if the public wants to hear them. Air America failed because nobody wants to hear what they have to say. NO ONE CARES!

It's the same old tact that liberals always use. Try it in the court of public opinion, and if that doesnt work, have the government shove it down our throats.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo
With exception of NPR and other "public" radio stations, they really aren't.

Stations pay tons of money for rights to air, broadcast equipment, programming rights...etc...These are private companies.

Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>
Both sides have the opportunity to be heard if the public wants to hear them. Air America failed because nobody wants to hear what they have to say. NO ONE CARES!</end quote></div>

It's the same old tact that liberals always use. Try it in the court of public opinion, and if that doesnt work, have the government shove it down our throats.

Dont forget the excuse for such actions always sounds noble. Like fairness or diversity ect ect. When somebody tells you they are taking away your right for your own good. That is the first sign it isnt going to go as promised.

 

[Corn]

The bottom line is broadcast spectrum is a scarce resource, roads are not.......blah blah.....Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.

Yer funny Stink.

Scarcity is just a bogus argument. All economic endeavours advantage themselves of "scarce" resources. That is the point, ain't it, otherwise everything would be "free". Every resource is finite--even roads. The demand for additional roadway exists. Ask any commuter. If adding road capacity were such an easy practical option, there would be no gridlock during the times people rely most on our public roadways.

There is this new invention called Frequency Modulation which significantly diminished the "scarcity" of the public airwaves. Digital transmission using "public airwaves" diminishes that scarcity even further--regardless of how impractical *you* think it is in implementing. It is as simple as buying a new radio. We're not talking about thousands of dollars in HD tv's.......oh no. How about $199 for a JVC car stereo...... .....or $159 for a home radio.

The public's interest defines the public interest--unless you're a lefty, then the public can't be trusted.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: BowfingerA fairness doctrine cuts both ways. While I think fictional entertainment shows should get a little more slack then (nominally) factual discussion/oration shows, there should still be a general responsibility to present both sides of issues. Each network would have to decide how to adequately meet that requirement, with appropriate oversight (viewer complaints, as one possible example) and enforcement as necessary. I don't think heavy-handed oversight of a fairness doctrine is that important. The important part is putting broadcasters on notice that they are responsible for ensuring balance.

Look, if you want to make talk radio hosts responsible for providing a balanced discussion why not hold the printed press or TV to the same standard?

Talk Radio, which current numbers put at 76% conservative, does a good job of engaging people in current issues. Talk radio hosts had to beat not only other talk radio hosts for listeners, they had to beat sports, news shows, and music radio. Putting restriction on what they say is because Washington wants to control speech. It is out of spite that they singled out talk radio. Talk Radio allows callers to actually get on the air and be heard, people connect with that. Politicians can't stand people thinking.

We can't have a free country without free expression ? on and off the airwaves.