Fairness Doctrine

[theeedude]

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

That's the same excuse conservatives have been using to bash the competition.
You don't see them criticizing Fox News for their conservative bias, even though, unlike other news organizations, Fox News actually claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact is they are trying to suppress opposing speech by calling it biased, while they themselves spew outright brainwashing. It's about time they are held to the same standard they hold the mainstream news.
</end quote></div>

Fox News is pay TV. They can pretty much claim anything they want as their viewers pay to watch it.

AM radio is broadcast and should be held to the same standard they hold other broadcast media, like television. If they want no media bias, it should apply to their medium too.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

No, you are absolutely, inarguably incorrect. They are, IN FACT, public airwaves. Look it up. Broadcasters receive a license to use our airwaves in return for agreeing to follow FCC regulations. For many years, long before AM radio became the haven for hate-mongers and truthy infotainment, that included abiding by the Fairness Doctrine.

I'll dismiss your hate-mongers comment; you are usually smarter than that. Public, licenses aside who do the liberals really have that are gonna compete with Rush or Hannity? Between the 2 of them they occupy 6 hours of prime time air. Sure, you could push their time slots around, or shorten their shows but in the end it's all about $$$ when it comes to who is on the air. It's not about whose viewpoint they want you to hear, it's about who can put the most controversial, polarizing form of talk/entertainment out there. Air America failed. And whose fault is that? Sloppy management? bad hosts? or was it programming that no one listened to? No listeners = no advertisements which in turn = show/station/host off the air.

Liberal radio apparently is just not a big thing. The liberals excel in many other areas to include a the internet blogs, newspapers, and a good portion of TV news. The worst thing about all of this is if this bill passes is could just be the beginning of something much bigger; what's next for fairness? The NY Times? Time Magazine? Or CNN? NBC? Fox? Some things might just be better to leave alone.

 

[JD50]

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

That's the same excuse conservatives have been using to bash the competition.
You don't see them criticizing Fox News for their conservative bias, even though, unlike other news organizations, Fox News actually claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact is they are trying to suppress opposing speech by calling it biased, while they themselves spew outright brainwashing. It's about time they are held to the same standard they hold the mainstream news.
</end quote></div>

Fox News is pay TV. They can pretty much claim anything they want as their viewers pay to watch it.</end quote></div>

AM radio is broadcast and should be held to the same standard they hold other broadcast media, like television. If they want no media bias, it should apply to their medium too.

Are you saying that AM radio news is bias? The talk shows are all entertainment, none of them claim to be unbiased.....

The purpose behind this is so obvious I don't see how any of you can defend it. Why is it that it targets the ONE part of the media where conservatives are the majority. The rest of the media is heavily dominated by liberals, yet no one is calling for "fairness" to be brought down on them through legislation. I have an idea, if you don't like conservative talk radio, then don't listen to it. You guys don't want to listen to talk radio anyways remember, you don't want to be "told how to think"?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: senseamp

AM radio is broadcast and should be held to the same standard they hold other broadcast media, like television. If they want no media bias, it should apply to their medium too.

And exactly what standard is television held to? The main channels that is; not the pay ones.

 

[theeedude]

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

AM radio is broadcast and should be held to the same standard they hold other broadcast media, like television. If they want no media bias, it should apply to their medium too.</end quote></div>

And exactly what standard is television held to? The main channels that is; not the pay ones.

The conservatives hold television to the fairness standard. They complain about bias all the time. They should be held to the same fairness standard. Hence the fairness doctrine.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp

That's the same excuse conservatives have been using to bash the competition.
You don't see them criticizing Fox News for their conservative bias, even though, unlike other news organizations, Fox News actually claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact is they are trying to suppress opposing speech by calling it biased, while they themselves spew outright brainwashing. It's about time they are held to the same standard they hold the mainstream news.
</end quote></div>

Fox News is pay TV. They can pretty much claim anything they want as their viewers pay to watch it.</end quote></div>

AM radio is broadcast and should be held to the same standard they hold other broadcast media, like television. If they want no media bias, it should apply to their medium too.</end quote></div>

Are you saying that AM radio news is bias? The talk shows are all entertainment, none of them claim to be unbiased.....

The purpose behind this is so obvious I don't see how any of you can defend it. Why is it that it targets the ONE part of the media where conservatives are the majority. The rest of the media is heavily dominated by liberals, yet no one is calling for "fairness" to be brought down on them through legislation. I have an idea, if you don't like conservative talk radio, then don't listen to it. You guys don't want to listen to talk radio anyways remember, you don't want to be "told how to think"?

TV news is also all entertainment now, yet conservatives hold them to fairness standard. If they want TV to be unbiased, they should be unbiased to. That's what the fairness doctrine is all about.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: senseamp

The conservatives hold television to the fairness standard. They complain about bias all the time. They should be held to the same fairness standard. Hence the fairness doctrine.

There is a huge difference to O'Reilly complaining that mainstream news is biased to people on the Hill enacting legislation to silence an opposing viewpoint. That is not fairness.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JD50

I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between promoting drug use in schools and free speech. But I guess you'd be fine if some crackhead came up to your kid and started telling him how great drugs are and that he should give it a shot, I mean you're all for free speech right?:roll:

Oh I know the difference. One you support the other you don't. The crackhead is free to have and expressive his opinons on drug use. There is nothing wrong with that unless you hate freedom. I think it is clear you are just using free speech as an excuse to try and get what you want and don't really give a damn about.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No, you are absolutely, inarguably incorrect. They are, IN FACT, public airwaves. Look it up. Broadcasters receive a license to use our airwaves in return for agreeing to follow FCC regulations. For many years, long before AM radio became the haven for hate-mongers and truthy infotainment, that included abiding by the Fairness Doctrine.

I'll dismiss your hate-mongers comment; you are usually smarter than that. Public, licenses aside who do the liberals really have that are gonna compete with Rush or Hannity? Between the 2 of them they occupy 6 hours of prime time air. Sure, you could push their time slots around, or shorten their shows but in the end it's all about $$$ when it comes to who is on the air. It's not about whose viewpoint they want you to hear, it's about who can put the most controversial, polarizing form of talk/entertainment out there. Air America failed. And whose fault is that? Sloppy management? bad hosts? or was it programming that no one listened to? No listeners = no advertisements which in turn = show/station/host off the air.

Thank you, you just demonstrated my point. The problem is not the politics of talk radio per se, it is the fact that many companies have decided that the greatest profits come from broadcasting "the most controversial, polarizing form of talk/entertainment out there". Though that may be popular, it simply does not serve the overall public interest any more than broadcasting porn on broadcast television serves the public interest. If companies want to profit from such trash, be it political or pornographic, more power to them, but they should not use the public airwaves to do so. That is my point.

(Re. hate-mongering, have you listened to some of these people? Some of it is pure hate-mongering. Certainly much of it is not, but hate sells, and as you point out, it's all about the $$$.)

Liberal radio apparently is just not a big thing. The liberals excel in many other areas to include a the internet blogs, newspapers, and a good portion of TV news. The worst thing about all of this is if this bill passes is could just be the beginning of something much bigger; what's next for fairness? The NY Times? Time Magazine? Or CNN? NBC? Fox? Some things might just be better to leave alone.

Sorry, it's a specious argument. With the exception of NBC, none of your examples are broadcast on the public airwaves. They are exempt. Re. NBC, I've already said television and radio should both be held to the same standards re. serving the public interest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Isn't it ironic that the same people who complain the loudest about the Patriot Act are the same ones who are now advocating this restriction of free speech? The amusing thing here is to watch the mental gymnastics they must go through to rationalize their hypocrisy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>But it simply is not a case of trying to silence the opposition. 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.</end quote></div>
The public interest is to let the public listen to what they want to listen to. Clearly on AM bands the public wants to listen to conservative talk radio. To deny them that is clearly not in the publics interest no matter how much you want to paint this disgusting turd of legislation pretty.</end quote></div>
I see a glaring flaw in that logic. If people want to watch porn on broadcast television, do you then concede it's in the public interest to allow it, or do you recognize that that which sells isn't always in the overall best interest? I contend that a one-sided torrent of often blatant disinformation does not serve America's overall need for a well-informed public. While such points of view should be given their pulpit, it is important that they be balanced by opposing points of view. Otherwise, when lies are left unrefuted, people begin to assume they're true. At least with balanced coverage, people learn there are opposing points of view.

The fact remains that the broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource, and they should be used to benefit the public as a whole. For those who insist on 7x24 Rush, there are plenty of other media where they can sate their cravings.

I think we already covered obscene material no? Nobody is forcing people to tune into the radio stations are they? If people want to get their entertainment from other avenues there is the TV networks, FM, Newspapers, Magazines, Internet, and Cable.

The monopoly idea is bogus and you know it. Balanced coverage is nothing more than a guise for censorship and limiting of peoples right to listen to what they want to. Again there is no surprise the left in this situation appluads the the idea of govt mandating what radio stations can broadcast.

Nature of the beast. Dont like what the opposition has to say? Use govt to shut them up.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Deudalus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>No, it sounds irrelevant. Repeat after me:

Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves

Sinking in yet? That's why broadcast is different from private stores, newspapers, cable, the Internet, etc. Public airwaves. If a private business is going to profit from a scarce public resource, it is entirely reasonable to insist it do so in a manner that serves the public interest. Public airwaves.
</end quote></div>

Umm, no it isnt public airways I'm afraid. They don't own the radio stations. They cannot contact a radio station and tell them what to play and what not to play. The government doesn't control the format of the radio station which is what YOU LIBS are asking for. Be careful when you ask for Stalin, you just might get him.

They can do that with PBS and NPR because those are paid for by the government and they exist because of government funding but the government even leaves them alone 99% of the time.

The only say so the government has over AM and FM radio is obscenity formatting and whatnot (which is why Howard Stern went to Sirius).

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.</end quote></div>

Clever, but not really.

I understand that people have their biases. I understand that most journalists are liberals (before you disagree every independent study shows this and its really OK). I do not have a problem with anyone being liberal. I do not have a problem with the editorial pages being as liberal as they wanna be. I do have a problem with trying to spin non-editorial stories in order to convert people to your political viewpoints. I have a problem with editorializing news that is being purported to be fact based.

Rush, Hannity, Franken, and others never claim to be objective. They don't claim to be unbiased. If you truly think any of them are unbiased then you are simply retarded.

If you can't see the difference between NEWS ANALYSTS being biased and COMMON REPORTERS REPORTING BASIC NEWS being biased then you have some serious issues.</end quote></div>
That's the same excuse conservatives have been using to bash the competition.
You don't see them criticizing Fox News for their conservative bias, even though, unlike other news organizations, Fox News actually claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact is they are trying to suppress opposing speech by calling it biased, while they themselves spew outright brainwashing. It's about time they are held to the same standard they hold the mainstream news.

Uh huge difference between bashing the competition for being biased and having the govt force my views onto the competition. If you cant see that difference it is quite scary. You wont find conservatives asking the govt to force CBS to be balanced, because the govt has no right to do so.

 

[Genx87]

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

That's the same excuse conservatives have been using to bash the competition.
You don't see them criticizing Fox News for their conservative bias, even though, unlike other news organizations, Fox News actually claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact is they are trying to suppress opposing speech by calling it biased, while they themselves spew outright brainwashing. It's about time they are held to the same standard they hold the mainstream news.
</end quote></div>

Fox News is pay TV. They can pretty much claim anything they want as their viewers pay to watch it.</end quote></div>

AM radio is broadcast and should be held to the same standard they hold other broadcast media, like television. If they want no media bias, it should apply to their medium too.

What standard is broadcast TV held to?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
But it simply is not a case of trying to silence the opposition. 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.</end quote></div>
The public interest is to let the public listen to what they want to listen to. Clearly on AM bands the public wants to listen to conservative talk radio. To deny them that is clearly not in the publics interest no matter how much you want to paint this disgusting turd of legislation pretty.</end quote></div>
I see a glaring flaw in that logic. If people want to watch porn on broadcast television, do you then concede it's in the public interest to allow it, or do you recognize that that which sells isn't always in the overall best interest? I contend that a one-sided torrent of often blatant disinformation does not serve America's overall need for a well-informed public. While such points of view should be given their pulpit, it is important that they be balanced by opposing points of view. Otherwise, when lies are left unrefuted, people begin to assume they're true. At least with balanced coverage, people learn there are opposing points of view.

The fact remains that the broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource, and they should be used to benefit the public as a whole. For those who insist on 7x24 Rush, there are plenty of other media where they can sate their cravings.

I think we already covered obscene material no?

No, not that I noticed. Indeed, it appears you and everyone else attacking Fairness has avoided the issue. So, let's get you on the record. Do you support broadcasting pornography? One need only look at the sales figures to see there is a tremendous demand for porn.

If you don't support broadcast porn, please explain how you are not being hypocritical. My position is consistent. I do not consider it in the public interest to use scarce public airwaves for either pronography -or- unbalanced partisan speech.

Nobody is forcing people to tune into the radio stations are they? If people want to get their entertainment from other avenues there is the TV networks, FM, Newspapers, Magazines, Internet, and Cable.

Nobody is forcing Limbaugh and his kin to limit their shows to radio stations are they? If they want to spread their truthy disinformation and hate speech there are other, non-broadcast avenues: Newspapers, Magazines, Internet, and Cable.

The monopoly idea is bogus and you know it.

Kindly point to anything I said about a monopoly. Until you can, I'll dismiss that as a straw man.

Balanced coverage is nothing more than a guise for censorship and limiting of peoples right to listen to what they want to. Again there is no surprise the left in this situation appluads the the idea of govt mandating what radio stations can broadcast.

Nature of the beast. Dont like what the opposition has to say? Use govt to shut them up.

Sheer partisan nonsense. There is all the difference in the world between censoring someone and requiring that a company profiting from the public airwaves serve the public interest by presenting fair and balanced information. You continue to ignore the FACT the Fairness Doctrine long predates the rise of right-wing talk radio. You continue to ignore the FACT that the Limbaugh, et al, have endless alternatives available besides AM radio. You continue to ignore the FACT that if the station owners do not want to abide by the requirements for profiting from the public airwaves, they are free to move their business to other media.

 

[Genx87]

No, not that I noticed. Indeed, it appears you and everyone else attacking Fairness has avoided the issue. So, let's get you on the record. Do you support broadcasting pornography? One need only look at the sales figures to see there is a tremendous demand for porn.

If you don't support broadcast porn, please explain how you are not being hypocritical. My position is consistent. I do not consider it in the public interest to use scarce public airwaves for either pronography -or- unbalanced partisan speech.

You obviously didnt look very hard as my first response in this thread said the following.

Um dont these stations pay for these rights? Is the FCC hading out bands for free now?
So if they pay for these rights, under what pretense do we dictate to them what they can broadcast if it isnt considered obscene?


I am not being hypicritical because pornography first and foremost wouldnt be played on AM radio. Secondly the Supreme Court has already decided the govt has the right to limit obscene material on public airwaves. Hence why Janet Jackson caused a fine.

Nobody is forcing Limbaugh and his kin to limit their shows to radio stations are they? If they want to spread their truthy disinformation and hate speech there are other, non-broadcast avenues: Newspapers, Magazines, Internet, and Cable.

Because Rush et al dont work well on TV, that is why. Just like Liberals dont work so well on AM radio. And what does it matter if Rush can try to go on TV? That has nothing to do with the your notion that these poor listeners are being forced to only listen to AM radio. And the govt must save them from the evil conservatives.

Sheer partisan nonsense. There is all the difference in the world between censoring someone and requiring that a company profiting from the public airwaves serve the public interest by presenting fair and balanced information. You continue to ignore the FACT the Fairness Doctrine long predates the rise of right-wing talk radio. You continue to ignore the FACT that the Limbaugh, et al, have endless alternatives available besides AM radio. You continue to ignore the FACT that if the station owners do not want to abide by the requirements for profiting from the public airwaves, they are free to move their business to other media.

Like I said before, force Intel to sell 50% of their product as Pentium IIs because those poor slot B owners dont have an avenue to upgrade and see what happens to their profit margin. You cant deny forcing radio stations to air material unprofitable will eventually run them out of business. I just suspect since you dont like the msg you dont care if they go out. And that is why this is an underhanded attempt at silencing the opposition to the liberal agenda.

You know Rush doesnt work on TV, just like Al Franken doesnt work on AM radio. The differene between us is you think using the force of govt to sqaush your opposition is fine, while I say let them find their own medium to broadcast. Liberals own the print media and TV, conservatives AM radio. you wont find me asking the govt to force liberal publications to pander to me.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.</end quote></div>

They may bitch and whine but they aren't enacting legislation to force a viewpoint to be heard.

And that is a huge difference.

No one supporting the Fairness Doctrine has addressed some very simply, yet importatn points.

1. how should this apply to fictional shows that present a liberal, or conservative view point?

2. Will radio hosts need ot have show topics submitted to a government agency to get an "approved" counter point.

3. what if there are more then two sides to an issue, does the government get to decide which is the correct 'counter point'?



Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JD50

I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between promoting drug use in schools and free speech. But I guess you'd be fine if some crackhead came up to your kid and started telling him how great drugs are and that he should give it a shot, I mean you're all for free speech right?:roll:

Oh I know the difference. One you support the other you don't. The crackhead is free to have and expressive his opinons on drug use. There is nothing wrong with that unless you hate freedom. I think it is clear you are just using free speech as an excuse to try and get what you want and don't really give a damn about.

If you are perfectly fine with someone coming up to your child and giving him a lecture on how great drugs are and that he should try crack I hope to God that you never have children. Yes, I obviously "hate freedom" because I don't want someone telling my kids that drugs are a great thing. :roll:

I guess its also ok to yell fire in a crowded theatre in your twisted world.

Edit - how about you get on topic instead of stalking me throughout different threads? Do you agree with the fairness doctrine?

 

[Bowfinger]

Oh for God's sake. I thought you might actually be interested in honest, responsive discussion for a change, but I am apparently mistaken.

Originally posted by: Genx87

No, not that I noticed. Indeed, it appears you and everyone else attacking Fairness has avoided the issue. So, let's get you on the record. Do you support broadcasting pornography? One need only look at the sales figures to see there is a tremendous demand for porn.

If you don't support broadcast porn, please explain how you are not being hypocritical. My position is consistent. I do not consider it in the public interest to use scarce public airwaves for either pronography -or- unbalanced partisan speech.

You obviously didnt look very hard as my first response in this thread said the following.

Um dont these stations pay for these rights? Is the FCC hading out bands for free now?
So if they pay for these rights, under what pretense do we dictate to them what they can broadcast if it isnt considered obscene?


I am not being hypicritical because pornography first and foremost wouldnt be played on AM radio. Secondly the Supreme Court has already decided the govt has the right to limit obscene material on public airwaves. Hence why Janet Jackson caused a fine.

Nice dodge. The issue isn't whether porn is prohibited. Obviously it is. The issue is how do you rationalize your hypocritical position? You support broadcast restrictions -- actual censorship -- for porn because you don't like it. You don't support broadcast restrictions requiring balanced coverage -- not censorship -- because you like the current form of abuse. To me that is blatant hypocrisy. If it were liberal talk radio that was so dominant, you would obviously change your tune.

My position, on the other hand, is consistent. I believe it is absolutely reasonable to require that public airwaves be used for the public good. Broadcasting porn, as popular and profitable as it might be, does not serve the greater public interest. Neither does broadcasting a one-sided, usually wildly inaccurate, and often hate-mongering partisan agenda without providing balanced coverage of other sides of the issues.

Nobody is forcing Limbaugh and his kin to limit their shows to radio stations are they? If they want to spread their truthy disinformation and hate speech there are other, non-broadcast avenues: Newspapers, Magazines, Internet, and Cable.

Because Rush et al dont work well on TV, that is why. Just like Liberals dont work so well on AM radio. And what does it matter if Rush can try to go on TV? That has nothing to do with the your notion that these poor listeners are being forced to only listen to AM radio. And the govt must save them from the evil conservatives.

More nonsense. First, plenty of conservative pundits work perfectly fine on TV. For those who don't, there's always Internet and satellite radio, written works, etc. More to the point, your argument remains a red herring since nobody is advocating silencing Rush. Let him have his broadcast radio show. Then serve the public interest by also offering content that balances Rush's partisan bias.

Second, kindly show me where I suggested anyting remotely similar to "saving [listeners] from the evil conservatives." While ignorance may be bliss, it is not good public policy in a representative democracy. Being exposed to only one side of important issues, be it the conservative, liberal, or anarcho-capitalism side, does not serve the overall best interests of the public or the country.

Sheer partisan nonsense. There is all the difference in the world between censoring someone and requiring that a company profiting from the public airwaves serve the public interest by presenting fair and balanced information. You continue to ignore the FACT the Fairness Doctrine long predates the rise of right-wing talk radio. You continue to ignore the FACT that the Limbaugh, et al, have endless alternatives available besides AM radio. You continue to ignore the FACT that if the station owners do not want to abide by the requirements for profiting from the public airwaves, they are free to move their business to other media.

Like I said before, force Intel to sell 50% of their product as Pentium IIs because those poor slot B owners dont have an avenue to upgrade and see what happens to their profit margin.

You might have a point if Intel was using publicly-owned factories and there was a public need for balanced processors. Since that's not the case, all you have is a diversion. Try to focus on the actual topic.

You cant deny forcing radio stations to air material unprofitable will eventually run them out of business.

Great, now we're moving on to the standard right-wing sky-is-falling whine. I can absolutely deny your premise that conservative talk radio is the one and only way AM radio stations can profit. It's simply preposterous, unsupported by actual history or anything in the real world. It may be that mixed content isn't quite as profitable as 7x24 conservative talk, but that's frankly too damn bad. It's not the government's job to guarantee profit rates for businesses. If a given owner doesn't find the return up to his standards of greed, he is always free to switch to other, more profitable unregulated media. There are plenty of others eager to step up and use the public airwaves for the public good.

I just suspect since you dont like the msg you dont care if they go out. And that is why this is an underhanded attempt at silencing the opposition to the liberal agenda.

And you are full of it. I've already pointed out that I support regulation of broadcast porn. I supported the Fairness Doctrine concept long before conservative talk radio became all the rage, and I will continue to support the concept long after we've moved on to new fads. Unlike most of the people attacking the Fairness Doctrine, I understand the concept of scarce public resources and the legitimate need to ensure they are used to serve the public interest.

You know Rush doesnt work on TV, just like Al Franken doesnt work on AM radio.

I don't know that at all, but the claim is irrelevant as I've pointed out repeatedly. Nobody is saying Rush can't have his AM radio show except you and the other right-wingers. It is a straw man argument.

The differene between us is you think using the force of govt to sqaush your opposition is fine,

No, the difference between us is I believe the government should serve the people, and I stand on principle while you are a devoted partisan.

while I say let them find their own medium to broadcast. Liberals own the print media and TV,

False. Also, print media do NOT use the public airwaves.

conservatives AM radio. you wont find me asking the govt to force liberal publications to pander to me.

I've already knocked the stuffing out of that straw man several times. Time for you to try a different talking point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: senseamp
Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.

They may bitch and whine but they aren't enacting legislation to force a viewpoint to be heard.

And that is a huge difference.

No one supporting the Fairness Doctrine has addressed some very simply, yet importatn points.

1. how should this apply to fictional shows that present a liberal, or conservative view point?

2. Will radio hosts need ot have show topics submitted to a government agency to get an "approved" counter point.

3. what if there are more then two sides to an issue, does the government get to decide which is the correct 'counter point'?

I agree, that's the real issue. Only the most die-hard partisans should oppose the concept of requiring balanced coverage. The hard part is figuring out how to define and measure "balanced". That would be a much more interesting and challenging discussion.

Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing.

So do you think it's bad the government regulates the broadcast of pornography? If not, your assertion fails. (I also disagree that the Fairness Doctrine materially regulates speech, but that's covered in other posts.)

 

[JD50]

Bowfinger I can't believe that you are still here trying to defend this blatant attempt at silencing conservatives. Its so friggin obvious thats what this is about, it targets the only portion of the media where conservatives have a signifigant voice. I just love how you keep bringing up the pornography argument, thats a little out there don't you think? So like I said earlier, why do you guys even care if conservatives are the majority on AM talk radio? Many of you even said that the reason that conservatives listen to talk radio is because they can't think for themselves, need someone to tell them what to think, blah blah blah. So is that what you are looking for? I thought you guys all thought for yourselves and don't need these talking heads telling you what to think, I guess I was wrong...

You might have a point if there was any evidence whatsoever of conservatives grabbing radio stations and just sitting on them so that liberals can't put any shows on, but that is not whats happening. For whatever reason, people don't want to listen to liberals on AM radio, get over it. Stop trying to tell me what I should be listening to.

 

[ProfJohn]

Shrumpage his the nail on the head.

Who decides what shows need to be balanced?
And who decided the form of that balance?

Finally I can?t not imagine that this would ever pass the courts, it is censorship.

BTW most popular music presents a liberal view of life (sex, drugs, free love etc) will we get to balance this type of music with ?conservative? music as well?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shrumpage his the nail on the head.

Who decides what shows need to be balanced?
And who decided the form of that balance?

Finally I can?t not imagine that this would ever pass the courts, it is censorship.

BTW most popular music presents a liberal view of life (sex, drugs, free love etc) will we get to balance this type of music with ?conservative? music as well?

Its disturbing that not one person that favors this can answer that question. They are so excited about silencing conservative voices that they don't even think the issue through. Why in the world would you want to enact a law requiring "fairness" when you can't even define what it actually means in the context of the law?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
Bowfinger I can't believe that you are still here trying to defend this blatant attempt at silencing conservatives. Its so friggin obvious thats what this is about, it targets the only portion of the media where conservatives have a signifigant voice. I just love how you keep bringing up the pornography argument, thats a little out there don't you think? So like I said earlier, why do you guys even care if conservatives are the majority on AM talk radio? Many of you even said that the reason that conservatives listen to talk radio is because they can't think for themselves, need someone to tell them what to think, blah blah blah. So is that what you are looking for? I thought you guys all thought for yourselves and don't need these talking heads telling you what to think, I guess I was wrong...

You might have a point if there was any evidence whatsoever of conservatives grabbing radio stations and just sitting on them so that liberals can't put any shows on, but that is not whats happening. For whatever reason, people don't want to listen to liberals on AM radio, get over it. Stop trying to tell me what I should be listening to.

Yes, yes, those propaganda points have been parroted to death already; I've addressed them multiple times. Can you address anything I said? Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion? If the answers are "no" and "no", you're just wasting electrons.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shrumpage his the nail on the head.

Who decides what shows need to be balanced?
And who decided the form of that balance?

Finally I can?t not imagine that this would ever pass the courts, it is censorship.

BTW most popular music presents a liberal view of life (sex, drugs, free love etc) will we get to balance this type of music with ?conservative? music as well?

Its disturbing that not one person that favors this can answer that question. They are so excited about silencing conservative voices that they don't even think the issue through. Why in the world would you want to enact a law requiring "fairness" when you can't even define what it actually means in the context of the law?

Blah, blah, blah. Give it a rest already. This victim mentality of the right gets really old, just makes you seem childish. "Mommy, mommy, save me from those big mean liberals!" ROFL.

It's not censorship, nobody is trying to silence conservatives, no matter how many times you cry otherwise. Your last sentence is a total non sequitur. One starts by establishing the goal, then works to produce the plan and guidelines needed to achieve it. So far, we're still arguing about the goal, with your side rejecting the very concept of fairness and serving the public interest.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo


Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>

24 hours a day of whining, blaming America, and asking for free handouts; Gee I can't see how this failed.</end quote></div>

I'm not really surprised Air America didn't work. While I believe that there is some artificial anti-competitive behavior going on, I'm also not sure there is that big of a market for liberal talk radio. Liberals, for the most part, like to think for themselves and not be told what to think. Sure, a lot of liberals LIKE Al Franken, but that doesn't mean we want to listen to him every day, telling us how we should feel about various things that happen in the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to THRIVE on being told what to think. And that's really all talk radio is. Liberal radio MIGHT do better with alternative reporting rather than commentary, but Air America was really the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, and that isn't really something designed to appeal to the liberal mindset.

I know, I know, unfair stereotypes and all that. But while Air America might just be run by people who don't know how to run a business, ask yourselves why the only regular, well know, liberal commentator on radio or TV is Alan Colmes (and he hardly qualifies)? It doesn't seem real likely that ALL the liberal commentators have bad business sense...so there must be some other reason the airwaves are flooded with loud mouthed conservatives and you have to really hunt to find a liberal.

Liberals have tons of outlets...they are called the main stream media, why would they need additional talk shows to further spout their beliefs? Conservative radio thrives because its the ONLY place you will hear people discussion the other side of the issues.