Russia Slides Back
- Thread starter Tangerines
- Start date
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Which explains why the Democrats are trying to revive the "Fairness Doctrine"
Link
She seems to forget that the public airwaves involve free choice, if you don't like the views of one station you switch to another.
Since talk radio is dominated by conservatives wouldn't this be the 50% Democrat rule?
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
If it looks like Putin will get kicked out he will fix the election. Democracy is dead in Russia.
And Bush has been President of the U.S. while Democracy and Freedom are on the run.
And he has helped the forces of repression more than any President in 200 years.
I'm as in favor of free speech as anyone, but I'm not sure that TV or radio stations should be able to do whatever they want with airwaves that belong to the country as a whole. Rush Limbaugh may have a right to free speech, but I don't he has the right to demand that the government provide him free access to the airwaves. If Rush wants to espouse his opinions in an OP-ED in the Washington Times, or on Fox News, he's absolutely free to do so. But when the government is providing you with the means to be heard, I don't think it's totally unreasonable that they might want some control over what you say. And the Fairness Doctrine isn't even suggesting that, all they are saying is that, as the airwaves are a public resource, the companies that profit from their usage have an obligation to INFORM their audience, and a big part of that involves some balance on the issues.
Talk radio being dominated by conservatives might be a triumph of capitalism, but it's not very useful from the standpoint of responsible use of the nation's airwaves. It's an intellectual monoculture, and while listeners can always change the station or turn off the radio, the argument is that they shouldn't have to, as the airwaves ultimately belong to the people.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I believe that the radio stations pay or paid for the right to broadcast.
The airwaves do belong to the public and the right to use them are sold by the government. Once a radio stations buys the right to broadcast it should be able to broadcast whatever it wants, within reason.
How about a Christian radio station, should they have to balance their time by allowing Jews and Muslims to broadcast on their station?
Well, now that I think about it I suppose that the restriction best comes from choosing who to sell a license to in the first place, and I agree that it opens up a huge can of worms if the government can dictate what an organization can and can't present.
The real danger, IMHO, isn't one radio or TV station being biased one way, but ALL of them being like that. Previous rules that barred any one company from owning too many stations overall have been totally nuked, resulting in the very real possibility that not only could one radio station be completely conservative (which really isn't that bad), but ALL radio stations in a given market could lean that way (a much bigger problem). Media conglomerates are going to kill free speech and the free exchange of ideas far faster than a lack of balance on any particular station.
This is not an issue of freedom of speech. Media and connection to information is now nearly a monolopy. Thanks to the Dumya Admin a SMALL number of very rich people control a large portion of the media (hello, time/warner/aol/murdock). This is NOT an unreasonable course of action. But, to be honest, i dont expect much from you and your ilk given that you "think" PBS is libural. When its FAR from liberal and is easily the most informative source of information in this country. You and your ilk are the MOST unamerican individuals i have ever had the displeasure of hearing from here.
How depressing when "fairness" becomes a dirty word. What exactly is wrong with the public airwaves representing the public? Actually trying to prevent a balanced approach is in fact censorship.
As far as the Fairness Doctrine it can be defended the same way "some" conservatives defend the decline of their civil liberties due to an increase in police powers: If you have to fear/hide, then you should have no complaint.
I.E. Only lying, truth manipulating, fear-mongers whose arguments will not stand up to any kind of scrutiny need fear the Fairness Doctrine.
You really have to be up to no good to oppose the Fairness Doctrine.
They are PUBLIC airwaves. That does not mean Rush shouldn't have his say, but it does mean that the company that uses our airwaves to provide him a platform has a responsibility to provide other/opposing platforms as well.
I have no problem with the Fairness Doctrine as it applies to mediums belonging to the people, ie- radio and broadcast TV, not internet or Cable), but it should be a secondary concern at best.
Ownership consolidation is so much more detrimental to free expression and the role of the press as social guardians. Free-Market determinism only works when there is more than one choice; if all the radio-stations in your town are ClearChannel stations- what difference does it make if I complain to advertisers? What other options do they have to broadcast to that market? That is why racketeering and monopolies are (supposed to be) illegal.
The Fairness Doctrine simply demands equal time for differing points of view. Under the Fairness Doctrine, Limbaugh could have called democrats every name under the sun, as long as he gave Bill Maher the exact same amount of time at the same time of day to call republicans every name under the sun.
These "talking heads"need to pump up a scary image in the weak minds of susceptible people, in order to maintain and build support for their own agenda. Rational people shouldn't fall prey to this by even dignifying this ludicrous spectre of conservative "talking heads" being forced off the airwaves.
If anyone doubts this bogeyman tactic, a quick visit to the FCC website makes you realize they are still fending off the ridiculous assertion that the long-dead Madalyn Murray O'Hair's followers are actively trying to ban religious broadcasters from the air. The right is still beating that dead horse.
If there's one place "some" conservatives don't like a free market, it's the marketplace of ideas. Here they need a monopoly more than anywhere else, because their product of today is so shoddy. If you open this up to competition they know they'll lose customers, because very few people would buy what they're peddling if they could see the alternatives.
Of course this is about maintaining the persecution complex.
And of course this is about riling the base with the spectre of Grand Illuminati Master Chomsky and Cult Of Dagon "libbies" Leader Soros. But more than anything it's about opposition to parity as embodied by the Fairness Doctrine.
Because opening dialogue means opening minds, and an open mind cannot hold the fumes of "talking head" deception for long.
As a thoroughly disgusted and disillusioned conservative (from the Goldwater school)I am simply thrilled to see the dread setting in and the ridiculous mind games already being set in motion by these "talking heads. The utterly specious notion that "liberals" will somehow use the Imus debacle to attack "talkng head"rant shows only betrays the knowlege among that camp that time is running out.
Let the Blame Game begin yet again.
If Limbaugh's employers own the courage of their convictions and if the bottom line remains sound, The Bloviator should be guaranteed at least his contractual obligation.
After that all bets are off...
As the market is drying up for lunatic ranting from the fringes. No loss when it happens, and it will, via the Free Market about which they know nothing but that it has somehow magically served them well during the recent ignorance boom, which is now going bust.
Limbaugh, wrongly enough, will likely only be gone when there is no longer a viable market for his blathering.
That sound you hear is the air being let out of the bandwagon's tires.
As far as the Fairness Doctrine it can be defended the same way "some" conservatives defend the decline of their civil liberties due to an increase in police powers: If you have to fear/hide, then you should have no complaint.
I.E. Only lying, truth manipulating, fear-mongers whose arguments will not stand up to any kind of scrutiny need fear the Fairness Doctrine.
You really have to be up to no good to oppose the Fairness Doctrine.
They are PUBLIC airwaves. That does not mean Rush shouldn't have his say, but it does mean that the company that uses our airwaves to provide him a platform has a responsibility to provide other/opposing platforms as well.
I have no problem with the Fairness Doctrine as it applies to mediums belonging to the people, ie- radio and broadcast TV, not internet or Cable), but it should be a secondary concern at best.
Ownership consolidation is so much more detrimental to free expression and the role of the press as social guardians. Free-Market determinism only works when there is more than one choice; if all the radio-stations in your town are ClearChannel stations- what difference does it make if I complain to advertisers? What other options do they have to broadcast to that market? That is why racketeering and monopolies are (supposed to be) illegal.
The Fairness Doctrine simply demands equal time for differing points of view. Under the Fairness Doctrine, Limbaugh could have called democrats every name under the sun, as long as he gave Bill Maher the exact same amount of time at the same time of day to call republicans every name under the sun.
These "talking heads"need to pump up a scary image in the weak minds of susceptible people, in order to maintain and build support for their own agenda. Rational people shouldn't fall prey to this by even dignifying this ludicrous spectre of conservative "talking heads" being forced off the airwaves.
If anyone doubts this bogeyman tactic, a quick visit to the FCC website makes you realize they are still fending off the ridiculous assertion that the long-dead Madalyn Murray O'Hair's followers are actively trying to ban religious broadcasters from the air. The right is still beating that dead horse.
If there's one place "some" conservatives don't like a free market, it's the marketplace of ideas. Here they need a monopoly more than anywhere else, because their product of today is so shoddy. If you open this up to competition they know they'll lose customers, because very few people would buy what they're peddling if they could see the alternatives.
Of course this is about maintaining the persecution complex.
And of course this is about riling the base with the spectre of Grand Illuminati Master Chomsky and Cult Of Dagon "libbies" Leader Soros. But more than anything it's about opposition to parity as embodied by the Fairness Doctrine.
Because opening dialogue means opening minds, and an open mind cannot hold the fumes of "talking head" deception for long.
As a thoroughly disgusted and disillusioned conservative (from the Goldwater school)I am simply thrilled to see the dread setting in and the ridiculous mind games already being set in motion by these "talking heads. The utterly specious notion that "liberals" will somehow use the Imus debacle to attack "talkng head"rant shows only betrays the knowlege among that camp that time is running out.
Let the Blame Game begin yet again.
If Limbaugh's employers own the courage of their convictions and if the bottom line remains sound, The Bloviator should be guaranteed at least his contractual obligation.
After that all bets are off...
As the market is drying up for lunatic ranting from the fringes. No loss when it happens, and it will, via the Free Market about which they know nothing but that it has somehow magically served them well during the recent ignorance boom, which is now going bust.
Limbaugh, wrongly enough, will likely only be gone when there is no longer a viable market for his blathering.
That sound you hear is the air being let out of the bandwagon's tires.
Democracy in Russia is dead, and it's been dead for a while. Putin has effectively and systematically destroyed it to make sure he remains in control.
The whole "Fairness Doctrine" is a bunch of crap. If the public wants to listen to blowhards like limbaugh, so be it, they are free to do so. Money talks --- if the public wanted to hear something else (like a liberal radio station), there would be money to be made and someone would start one. I do believe concentrated corporate media ownership is a bad thing, the laws need to be set back to mandate that a company can not own more than a certain number of stations our media outlets.
Lets also not forget that the internet is working as a great equalizer. The radio and tv stations may be dominated by right-wing zealots, but the internet is open to all. Ideas can be exchanged freely without any media talking heads being involved.
The whole "Fairness Doctrine" is a bunch of crap. If the public wants to listen to blowhards like limbaugh, so be it, they are free to do so. Money talks --- if the public wanted to hear something else (like a liberal radio station), there would be money to be made and someone would start one. I do believe concentrated corporate media ownership is a bad thing, the laws need to be set back to mandate that a company can not own more than a certain number of stations our media outlets.
Lets also not forget that the internet is working as a great equalizer. The radio and tv stations may be dominated by right-wing zealots, but the internet is open to all. Ideas can be exchanged freely without any media talking heads being involved.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
The internet? It's the largest collection of cr*p ever invented insofar as providing the truth.
Anyone can say anything. And they do. More nonsense has been quoted as fact in these forums from b.s. internet sites than all the newspapers, magaazines and books ever printed.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,198
- 126
Like Yeltcin? They don't want someone like that. Russians don't want what you want for them. They want their material needs met, and a state that clamps down on corruption that was happening in the free and democratic 90s, when the country was being robbed blind. As long as economy is doing good, they wouldn't want to change leadership, that's why Putin is so popular.
Plus Putin is out next year, he's term limited.
Bush is just about as bad as his buddy Putin. Free speech has been hampered under Putin watch, and in one stroke of a pen he killed the money launder investigation by the Swiss/Russian authority regarding himself & family, then prosecuted his political opponent to make sure that he was reelected for the second term.
[add] Almost forgot that people that criticizes Putin tend to mysteriously died from radiation poisoning.
[add] Almost forgot that people that criticizes Putin tend to mysteriously died from radiation poisoning.
That's the whole point -- anyone can say anything. We are no longer dependent on what some empowered few decide to print or say, everyone has a the option to voice their opinion. If others like it, they might listen, if they don't, they don't. Works much better than having the talking heads always creating the framework for the discussion.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,360
- 126
So you blame this supposed concentration of power to a select few...on Prez Bush?
wow
amazing
edit: and what exactly does this have to do with the OP? Is Bush stifling free speech in Russia now?
Where is your evidence to support that Bush personally is trying to limit free speech, and what do you say to the earlier post with proof that a democrat is trying to limit free speech on the radio?
Bush didn't limit free speech per se, however he greatly limit the press penetration during the Iraq war, back pedal on human rights, lies & spies on the citizens that he supposedly serve, render the UN & nuclear treaty use less, steal from tax payers and funnel it to his right hand man company.
This was has had the largest press penetration of any war in history. I dont recall independent reporters ever being embedded with troops in a prior war. Jesus, some attempts to tie Bush into everything around here is down right pathetic.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter