• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Think the state limiting your view in the press is limited to Chavez?

I

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
GORE: And the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio. And that's why the equal time provision and the fairness doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan's term.

This isn't about defending democracy, its about limiting the ability of one side to get its message out. It isn't about being fair, its about making sure that all forms of media obey the party.

If you don't like the message then change the channel. So why is the fairness doctrine only applied to Radio? Why not print? Why not TV? Why not Internet? Simple, because they don't fear print and tv which are bastions for people who think like them. They fear radio because of all the audacity most of these radio shows let average Americans speak their mind (some do so so the host can rip them to shreds - but I digress)

Think of this as just another assualt on your freedom. Anyone with the means is free to start a radio station, however there should be no mandate that people must listen.

Don't tell me that radio needs to be treated differently, this is about losing our freedom of speech because as soon as they shut down one type of speech I guarantee they will go after another. Hell, I am surprised they haven't tried the hate speech method yet.

 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
GORE: And the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio. And that's why the equal time provision and the fairness doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan's term.

This isn't about defending democracy, its about limiting the ability of one side to get its message out. It isn't about being fair, its about making sure that all forms of media obey the party.

If you don't like the message then change the channel. So why is the fairness doctrine only applied to Radio? Why not print? Why not TV? Why not Internet? Simple, because they don't fear print and tv which are bastions for people who think like them. They fear radio because of all the audacity most of these radio shows let average Americans speak their mind (some do so so the host can rip them to shreds - but I digress)

Think of this as just another assualt on your freedom. Anyone with the means is free to start a radio station, however there should be no mandate that people must listen.

Don't tell me that radio needs to be treated differently, this is about losing our freedom of speech because as soon as they shut down one type of speech I guarantee they will go after another. Hell, I am surprised they haven't tried the hate speech method yet.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised you are against fairness.

The radio meduim has been bought out and controlled by your IMO Treasonous heros for many years now and it is quite literally Government sanctioned brainwashing condoned by a Republican controlled Government.

It is the only reason Rush, Hannity and the rest of the Republican soldiers dominate the airwaves.
 
Its called a free market Dave. And mainstream Americans who listen to AM radio dont want to hear liberals like yourself whining all day about everything.
 
I do fidn it interesting the left typically champions using the brute force of govt to crush the opposition and limit free speech. They defend it when Chavez does it, they are silent or support it when democrats try it at home.

 
FYI the "story" is from a web site that says it's purpose is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media"
So FYI the guy who posted this posts many of these propaganda sites day after day.
In fact he is probably the record holder for having his threads turned around on him.

As this one turns on him.
The "Fairness Doctrine" DID cover television!!!(the doctrine is no longer in effect) It does not cover print because of the Constitutional provision of a free press. When the Fairness Doctrine was passed the argument was that there were so many radio stations. and that the laws in place were so protective of the free market that it was highly unlikely it would be needed since large networks of single ownership and the ability of syndications were difficult and rare. However, Republicans and technology have come together to allow large radio neetworks and syndication to severly limit points of view in many markets.
But more importantly the airwaves, by that the frequencies, had to have some regulation since if it weren't anyone could broadcast over the frequency of the other. And the number of frequencies was limited. For television the number was quite low. For radio much higher. So the airwaves actually belong to the people of the United States. Who lease them to broadcasters. In return one of the conditions is that the broadcasters use the frequency for the public welfare.
Hence the Fairness Doctrine.

More on the Fairness Doctrine from a source other than a right wing propaganda site is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

Hehe. Thanks to Shivetya I think the Fairness Doctrine will now be on more peoples agenda. In a positive way.

 
In other words, Shivetya advocates all the free speech you can pay for in the media of radio, no others need apply.

The notion that the rightwing is somehow hampered in the dissemination of their message, such as it is, by the fairness doctrine's insistence that other viewpoints be represented for free, if necessary, is profoundly dishonest. It just means that Rush, Hannity, et al can't have all the airtime...
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
In other words, Shivetya advocates all the free speech you can pay for in the media of radio, no others need apply.

The notion that the rightwing is somehow hampered in the dissemination of their message, such as it is, by the fairness doctrine's insistence that other viewpoints be represented for free, if necessary, is profoundly dishonest. It just means that Rush, Hannity, et al can't have all the airtime...
Click to expand...

Is airtime free in your world or something?
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
In other words, Shivetya advocates all the free speech you can pay for in the media of radio, no others need apply.

The notion that the rightwing is somehow hampered in the dissemination of their message, such as it is, by the fairness doctrine's insistence that other viewpoints be represented for free, if necessary, is profoundly dishonest. It just means that Rush, Hannity, et al can't have all the airtime...
Click to expand...

no CENSORED. I support freedom of the press period. That means the government cannot restrict it in any form.

Who is giving Rush and Hannity all the air time? Care to prove that stupid claim? Who is preventing someone from setting up a competing show? WHO! You always claim corporate america is stopping you, when then CITE your sources.

There are tens of thousands of radio stations. Tell me you can't get your viewpoint across on any of them? C'mon, tell me and then prove it.



 
Your reply, Genx87, indicates that yes indeed, reading is a much higher level skill than listening, which is why the Rightwing wants to dominate completely the media of radio- it's their target audience, people who absorb auditory information without even giving it the slightest thought... and then believe they're having some kind of original thought when they regurgitate it...

Reference Techs' excellent post just prior to my own, above....
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your reply, Genx87, indicates that yes indeed, reading is a much higher level skill than listening, which is why the Rightwing wants to dominate completely the media of radio- it's their target audience, people who absorb auditory information without even giving it the slightest thought... and then believe they're having some kind of original thought when they regurgitate it...

Reference Techs' excellent post just prior to my own, above....
Click to expand...

completely ignoring the words that Gore used. He isn't concerned about what the law was for, only what he and his cohorts can use it for.

plus techs cannot prove anyone is restricting an opposing view to conservatives on the radio. its far easier to find cases of where they tried to push liberal views and failed.
 
There are about 10,000 radio stations in the US.
If there was a market for liberal ideas someone would cater to it, but Air America shows us that no one wants to listen to what they have to say.

So in typical liberal fashion, if you can?t win at the ballot box take them to court.

There is nothing fair about the Fairness doctrine; it is just an attempt to force radio stations to broadcast the left view of things.

Check out the list of top talk show host and you have to go all the way to number 13 before you find the first liberal. That pretty much explains to you why Democrats want this bill passed, to level the playing ground for them.
Top talk radio hosts
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your reply, Genx87, indicates that yes indeed, reading is a much higher level skill than listening, which is why the Rightwing wants to dominate completely the media of radio- it's their target audience, people who absorb auditory information without even giving it the slightest thought... and then believe they're having some kind of original thought when they regurgitate it...

Reference Techs' excellent post just prior to my own, above....
Click to expand...

Are you going to answer my question?
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: smack Down
Didn't you already post in that other thread?

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=2047310&enterthread=y
Click to expand...

Not the same, this is Al Gore from this WEEK.

The same guy who wants to tell you how to live, but not live that way, wants to limit your freedom of expression as well. Whats next?
Click to expand...

When did radio become a free market? Last time I checked with the FCC it was illegal to just start broadcasting.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
GORE: And the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio. And that's why the equal time provision and the fairness doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan's term.

This isn't about defending democracy, its about limiting the ability of one side to get its message out. It isn't about being fair, its about making sure that all forms of media obey the party.

If you don't like the message then change the channel. So why is the fairness doctrine only applied to Radio? Why not print? Why not TV? Why not Internet? Simple, because they don't fear print and tv which are bastions for people who think like them. They fear radio because of all the audacity most of these radio shows let average Americans speak their mind (some do so so the host can rip them to shreds - but I digress)

Think of this as just another assualt on your freedom. Anyone with the means is free to start a radio station, however there should be no mandate that people must listen.

Don't tell me that radio needs to be treated differently, this is about losing our freedom of speech because as soon as they shut down one type of speech I guarantee they will go after another. Hell, I am surprised they haven't tried the hate speech method yet.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised you are against fairness.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised you are against free speech, and mask the restriction of it as fairness.

Think of this is the Dem?s version of the Patriot Act. Removing constitutional protections one bill at a time.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There are about 10,000 radio stations in the US.
If there was a market for liberal ideas someone would cater to it, but Air America shows us that no one wants to listen to what they have to say.

So in typical liberal fashion, if you can?t win at the ballot box take them to court.

There is nothing fair about the Fairness doctrine; it is just an attempt to force radio stations to broadcast the left view of things.

Check out the list of top talk show host and you have to go all the way to number 13 before you find the first liberal. That pretty much explains to you why Democrats want this bill passed, to level the playing ground for them.
Top talk radio hosts
Click to expand...


John... John... I try to defend you in other threads and then you post stuff like this. Come on man.

You guys are really thinking about the purpose of the fairness doctrine all wrong, AND you didn't read Gore's quote in the article. (however stupid and biased the source might be). His point was that the barrier of entry for TV and the radio is extremely high. Not just anyone can have a voice on there like on the internet, because you need millions of dollars to get started. His argument is that due to this high barrier of entry TV and the radio in effect will only promote the views that are acceptable to those with at least several million dollars, and that is fundamentally damaging to the dialogue in this country. I happen to agree.

You can be against his view if you want... it's a very similar one to the rationale behind campaign finance restrictions in that it is trying to keep the top 1%, or top .05% from dominating the dialogue. So if you hate campaign finance reform, and think that corporations, millionaires, etc should be free to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the public debate, then I definitely understand why you wouldn't like the fairness doctrine. Don't try to characterize it as some sort of liberal end-run around the will of the people though, because that's bull$hit.
 
The basic issue is that the right wing doesn't have any appreciation for different points of view; they're happy with just one, and they see any other as an 'annoyance'. Liberals, on the other hand, understand the value to hearing 'both sides'.

This is why you see in the programming, that the right-wingers constantly have only one side; the only exception that comes to mind proves the rules, Hannity and Colmes. On the other hand, nearly all the 'liberal' outlets present different views, bending over backwards to cover even the looney right.

For example, Bill Moyers is a liberal, but his shows frequently interview leading right-wing voices. Shows with largely liberal viewers like NOW and Frontline include the views of right-wingers. Radio talk show hosts like Thom Hartmann frequently interview very right-wing people. NPR, also with more liberal listeners, also frequently interviews right-wingers. Salon's blog coverage has half the space for liberal, half for right-wing blogs, and so on.

What the right-wingers fail to understand is the corrupting influence of the money in the system. They fail to grasp how money pushes one 'product' over another, and how to balance that; they have the naive view that the 'free market' brings the 'people's choice' all the time - the same naivete that would say George Bush was the best person to have as president, with all the corrupt money that paid for his campaign.

That's why we have threads on how 'outrageous' it is today, the same day as this thread, on why Bush is trying to ban the testing for mad cow disease, when the meat corporations gave him a lot of money to represent them, not the public.

The fairness doctrine is far from perfect, like pretty much anything in democracy, but it helps people to get differeent views, which is good for democracy. The right could care less, as they put ideology - 'free market' - ahead of democracy.
Imagine if public libraries did not exist and were suggested today. They'd scream murder about the 'socialization of books' and how it would destroy publishing.

The Supreme Court upheld the fairness doctrine in 1969, as well.
 
after a couple of months of cooling down, i once again listened to a local AM radio automotive show.. he had made some disparaging remarks about gays & lesbains during a gay pride parade and I had refused to listen to him... this weekend he went off on the Dems for "losing Vietnam".

It seems to me that his personal politics don't have any business on his auto show.
 
Originally posted by: Corbett
Its called a free market ...
Click to expand...

Why do people equate "free market" with democracy, as if it's a right? IOW, giving the making of money full rights as if it were a citizen who votes and is entitled to the rights of a person.
 
Originally posted by: robphelan
after a couple of months of cooling down, i once again listened to a local AM radio automotive show.. he had made some disparaging remarks about gays & lesbains during a gay pride parade and I had refused to listen to him... this weekend he went off on the Dems for "losing Vietnam".

It seems to me that his personal politics don't have any business on his auto show.
Click to expand...

Write him and stop listening. Or do you want govt to tell him what to say?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There are about 10,000 radio stations in the US.
If there was a market for liberal ideas someone would cater to it, but Air America shows us that no one wants to listen to what they have to say.

So in typical liberal fashion, if you can?t win at the ballot box take them to court.

There is nothing fair about the Fairness doctrine; it is just an attempt to force radio stations to broadcast the left view of things.

Check out the list of top talk show host and you have to go all the way to number 13 before you find the first liberal. That pretty much explains to you why Democrats want this bill passed, to level the playing ground for them.
Top talk radio hosts
Click to expand...

It's funny.. I find radio political shows mindless... maybe "liberals" just have a brain and don't need to be lectured day in and day out about what they SHOULD think ...and just decide for themselves...
 
The actual purpose of the fairness doctrine is to limit media discussion solely to the major bipartisan choices. It's the same way that Republicans always blast their opponents as "liberals" and Democrats their opponents as "right-wingers" when actual neither side is representative of such ideologies. It's a way of limiting the political thinking to strictly the major partisan platforms. As with Coke and Pepsi, the most important thing is that you're not drinking RC. This is the FreedomTM to pace back and forth within your cage.
 
Thinks strikes me as a perfect example of why many think liberals are loony, and go to great lengths to rationalize unsupportable BS.

We don't have enough opinions, or outlets for them? Great Holy Jeebus, we've got everything from 911 tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy freaks to gay-bashers proposing the death penalty for them.

Our culture has info overload, not lack of opinions. The challenge is to seperate the wheat from the chaff, no provide more chaff. It was a far different world only 30 years ago, before cable, satellite and the internet.

NPR broadcasts everywhere. If the government thinks an opinion is not getting aired - put it on NPR. Oddly, I think they are exempt form this proposal? If so, how does one found an explaination for that in all this lofty prose?

Anybody can tune into whatever they want these. Might that be the probem? Might some feel that people aren't making the "right choices", and so this rule will "help them" get the right opinions, even if they don't want it?

It's a naked and transparent ploy, dressing it up in lofty language ain't foolin' anybody. Why not just give the bill an accurate name? Oh, say something like the "Anti-Rushbo Radio Act". A little honesty would be nice for a change.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Vic
The actual purpose of the fairness doctrine is to limit media discussion solely to the major bipartisan choices. It's the same way that Republicans always blast their opponents as "liberals" and Democrats their opponents as "right-wingers" when actual neither side is representative of such ideologies. It's a way of limiting the political thinking to strictly the major partisan platforms. As with Coke and Pepsi, the most important thing is that you're not drinking RC. This is the FreedomTM to pace back and forth within your cage.
Click to expand...

Even when vic's right, he gets it wrong.

He has no evidence of his claim that the fairness doctrine is about limiting media discusson that way, even while he battles for one message rather than at least two.

Sometimes, what he says does happen; the commision for presidential debates is an organization devoted to the purpose of shutting out third parties.

But he should do more research on Coke and Pepsi, they actually fight each other for market share quite a bit, more than they go after RC.

Leave it to him to use an analogy that proves the opposite of what he wants, when he actually has a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top