Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ZetaNine on June 25, 2008, 08:52:10 PM
-
I'd really like to hear opinions on this from any interested parties.
(http://lastrow.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/george-bush-and-nancy-pelosi.jpg)
If you have not heard of it... it is being touted as "a way to equalize the playing field on talk radio".. meaning that it will be mandatory to for stations and networks to offer "equal time".
what it really is........is a democratic sponsored bill that in it's most basic terms...does not like the way the free market in the raido industry operates...and is appalled that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves. air america and other left leaning radio has lost money in almost every market...while conservative radio is more successful then ever....so this is the lefts way of saying "to hell with the free market and what listeners and sponsors want...let's pass a federal law to make it 50-50.......and for every hour there is a conservative voice......they must now broadcast a liberal voice.
I find this utterly un-american....
what's your take?
-
As socialist as it can get. Radio should be market driven. Many liberal radio stations(NPR) are already publicly funded. The reason there are so few leftist stations is because much of the general populace isn't interested.
-
As socialist as it can get. Radio should be market driven. Many liberal radio stations(NPR) are already publicly funded. The reason there are so few leftist stations is because much of the general populace isn't interested.
well said......and spot on.
-
My take is that it is crap...period.
-
The candidate with the highest quality speech for an equal amount of time will get the most demand. As in supply and demand. I also think this would have been good (and effective to a certain extent) to have back in the GOP debates, where love muffines like Giuliani (where is he now??) got demeasured talking time, vs. others like Paul.
-
I think we're trying to make the free market a fair market, also. Is it fair to have to have to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio every time I visit my recycling center or adult book store?
I think not.
-
I think we're trying to make the free market a fair market, also. Is it fair to have to have to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio every time I visit my recycling center or adult book store?
I think not.
absoultely fair. You can wear earplugs or patronize another establishment. NO-ONE is forcing it upon you.
-
Steve, are you saying it's not fair to give THE LEFT equal time on our airwaves, simply because the airways are market driven?
-
Steve, are you saying it's not fair to give THE LEFT equal time on our airwaves, simply because the airways are market driven?
Who's fault is it people don't tune in?
-
Steve, are you saying it's not fair to give THE LEFT equal time on our airwaves, simply because the airways are market driven?
he's saying its not right for the government to force it.
-
http://affiliates.foxnewsradio.com/Radio/player.html
Alan Colmes is on right now... tune in and listen you libs..
;)
-
Steve, are you saying it's not fair to give THE LEFT equal time on our airwaves, simply because the airways are market driven?
absolutely. If radio stations wanted to give leftists airtimes they would. Do you think it's fair to dictate to radio stations what they play?
-
The only station is 95 Bfm. In Auckland New Zealand.
www.95bfm.co.nz
-
Steve, are you saying it's not fair to give THE LEFT equal time on our airwaves, simply because the airways are market driven?
We're saying it is WRONG to FORCE a business to try to SELL a product no one wants, and deny said business the ability to make a profit. See, the problem is YOU want to GIVE the "LEFT" airtime that does not BELONG to YOU. That air time belongs to the radio station that is in business to make a profit. What is it that gives YOU the right to DENY another person the ability to make a living? How is it FAIR to take something that does not belong to you because you don't like the way it is used?
The "left" doesn't have a radio audience. It has been proven time and again, for decades. Why? Probably because those on the "left" don't listen. They don't pay either, evidently.
-
Air America....there's the left....oh, wait....are they still on the air?
Carrel,
Equal time for anyone should not be forced. If people want to listen they will and that program or host will remain on the air. If people don't tune in then the program will sink. Forcing a successful station to provide equal time to something that nobody wants to listen to is nothing more than socialism.
-
I'd really like to hear opinions on this from any interested parties.
(http://lastrow.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/george-bush-and-nancy-pelosi.jpg)
If you have not heard of it... it is being touted as "a way to equalize the playing field on talk radio".. meaning that it will be mandatory to for stations and networks to offer "equal time".
what it really is........is a democratic sponsored bill that in it's most basic terms...does not like the way the free market in the raido industry operates...and is appalled that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves. air america and other left leaning radio has lost money in almost every market...while conservative radio is more successful then ever....so this is the lefts way of saying "to hell with the free market and what listeners and sponsors want...let's pass a federal law to make it 50-50.......and for every hour there is a conservative voice......they must now broadcast a liberal voice.
I find this utterly un-american....
what's your take?
actually,...me personally.....i don't give a flying eff about talk radio. if i want to hear these lying SOB's talk, i'll turn on the tv. or better yet, i come here and check the links you guys post. some of them are good. screw talk radio. i listen to radio for the music. what's appaling about radio today, is when you have 12 presets on your car radio, and 10 of those stations all have commercials on all at the same time. THAT is just downright annoying. :mad:
-
So whats new?
I've been banned from Newspaper blogs for conservative opinions. Never used an obscenity or anything that could be considered hateful. I simply pointed out liberal bias and gave examples and the post was deleted and my account banned. Liberalism is not about free speech or open dialogue. Its about controlled speech and propaganda. That's why I don't like liberals.
Shutting people up has never worked for long. I don't think it will work in this country either.
-
Are ya'll sure this is socialism? It sounds suspiciously like something else....
-
Imagine the uproar if TV networks were forced to adhere to the same standard. Then again, people might actually start watching NBC and CBS again. Newspapers use "our" trees to make their paper so maybe they should be forced to fairness also. I can just hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the New York Times now.
-
It is sickening that this is even being discussed in a serious manner.
Freedom of speech and free market are what makes this country great.
If you don't like what they are saying turn the channel.
Everyone points to Rush and the dominance of the right on radio stations. Heck, Rush IS the balance from the liberal network news and newspaper.
If this even goes to a vote, it will be one of the darkest political days in the history of the US.
-
It is sickening that this is even being discussed in a serious manner.
Freedom of speech and free market are what makes this country great.
If you don't like what they are saying turn the channel.
Everyone points to Rush and the dominance of the right on radio stations. Heck, Rush IS the balance from the liberal network news and newspaper.
If this even goes to a vote, it will be one of the darkest political days in the history of the US.
Oh, there's the sticky wicket. The Democrats are going to maneuver this without a vote by choosing the right FCC Chairman.
They really don't like dissent, and they will shut it up.
-
Are ya'll sure this is socialism? It sounds suspiciously like something else....
Shhhh.....
-
Oh, there's the sticky wicket. The Democrats are going to maneuver this without a vote by choosing the right FCC Chairman.
They really don't like dissent, and they will shut it up.
They are only doing what's best for everyone. Afterall, as Nancy Pelosi said, it was the evil talk show hosts that stopped them from ramrodding the illegal alien amnesty bill. The little guy just doesn't know what's best for him. George Orwell appears to have been a prophet.
-
Are ya'll sure this is socialism? It sounds suspiciously like something else....
And what might that be?
-
Well, Donzo, let's see: a state controlled press (cause this won't stop with just talk radio); companies that refuse to comply being heavily fined, at the very least, or having their licenses pulled, at the very worst.
Gee...I don't know...what do you think it sounds like?
-
Bye the Bye....what do ya bet that this measure is tabled until next year, to avoid it being vetoed by Bush. Is anyone here actually feeble-mined enough to believe that if Obama is elected that he would veto it?
How many of you that support this bill got all pis-sy and self-righteous about the federal government monitoring the destinations of overseas calls "without a warrant?"
-
Only a lying two faced convicted drug addict like Rush Limburger can get so many morons to believe his drivel
this country is hilarious
NwBie
:noid
-
Only a lying two faced convicted drug addict like Rush Limburger can get so many morons to believe his drivel
this country is hilarious
NwBie
:noid
Except that's not what this discussion is about
-
I think this is what they meant when they said
"To defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic"
-
Except that's not what this discussion is about
You waited til my post to type that? There are a few above leaning to the home dugout that pretty much stated it another way...
The Bill o' Reilly --Dont bring up something i don't want to acknowledge - response doctrine is catching
:noid
-
actually,...me personally.....i don't give a flying eff about talk radio. if i want to hear these lying SOB's talk, i'll turn on the tv. or better yet, i come here and check the links you guys post. some of them are good. screw talk radio. i listen to radio for the music. what's appaling about radio today, is when you have 12 presets on your car radio, and 10 of those stations all have commercials on all at the same time. THAT is just downright annoying. :mad:
Why I have XM radio, less commercials and a ton of music. :D Plus i can hear the same station no matter where in the US i drive :aok
-
You waited til my post to type that? There are a few above leaning to the home dugout that pretty much stated it another way...
The Bill o' Reilly --Dont bring up something i don't want to acknowledge - response doctrine is catching
:noid
huh?
-
:huh
-
Why I have XM radio, less commercials and a ton of music. :D Plus i can hear the same station no matter where in the US i drive :aok
got sirius..... :D :aok
-
The "Fairness Doctrine" was in place in this Country up until the late 1980's. I wonder when Rush and his lying ilk started their hate speech?
Anyway all of you guys posting about the good old days need to recall that those days included the fairness doctrine and all that went with it. You want the market to decide what you hear on the radio, and what you will really get is Clear Channel deciding what you listen to on the radio.
-
The "Fairness Doctrine" was in place in this Country up until the late 1980's. I wonder when Rush and his lying ilk started their hate speech?
Anyway all of you guys posting about the good old days need to recall that those days included the fairness doctrine and all that went with it. You want the market to decide what you hear on the radio, and what you will really get is Clear Channel deciding what you listen to on the radio.
we don't already have that?? like i mentioned earlier... i often have 10 out of 12 presets all with commercials at the same time.....and about 7 or 8 minutes worth of them. it's like they're all owned by the same company and they WILL make sure we listen to their commercials. it's why i went to sirius radio....
<<S>
-
Why are the left wing liberals here and in congress not asking for a fairness doctrine for tv and newspapers too? No talk about politics of any kind.. on the air or in print.. can be left out.. if something about anything or anyone political is said then both the right and the left must be represented.
Jon stewart would need to be balanced.. the new york times... newsweek and cnn and msnbc.
course.. maybe then the newspapers might get read again but.. with 76% of all reporters identifiying with the left.. there would have to be a lot of firings.
NPR is something I listen to along with right wing stations in my work vehicle.. NPR is so slanted left that it should be obvious to everyone.. not only do they get a pass but we have to pay for it with our tax money.
The left controls the schools.. the left controls all speech and every form of media from print to movies to TV (both broadcast and cable)... the only things they don't control is the internet and some tiny little corner of the radio.. the radio... talk radio.. a media that everyone had declared dead.
It is amazing that we are not all indoctrinated to the little red book like newbie by now.. it is amazing that in all this left wing barrage of info forced down our throat that we find some islands of sanity...
Now they want to take that.. why? well.. what else can be keeping them from their goal of a socialist utopia??? If only they controlled everything.. utopia could happen.
It is like living in an Ayn Rand novel these days.
lazs
-
MT.. when the fairness doctrine was in effect.. we didn't really even need it.
The media has gone off the deep end liberal wise since then. The fairness doctrine was meant to give all candidates a fair shot in the media.. at the time, almost exclusively TV. It was so that candidates with small war chests could get represented.
Now.. every form of media save a tiny little segment of radio and the internet is left wing and the democrats have a much bigger war chest to buy time with.
I think that if we have a fairness doctrine then it should go first to TV and movies.. if you have a left wing documentary for instance.. it needs to be balanced with the showing of the other view..
Who decides what is equal time and for what? Is rush right wing and needs to be "balanced"? is NPR left wing and needs to be balanced? Is newsweek so left wing that it just needs to be double the pages with the new half all written by conservatives?
How bout we let people vote with their money and patronage?
lazs
-
And you know all of this because the guys on the radio told you so.
-
How bout we let people vote with their money and patronage?
lazs
How unfair!
-
The left controls the schools..
they control academia because that's where they all ran to during viet nam.
-
I think that if we have a fairness doctrine then it should go first to TV and movies.. if you have a left wing documentary for instance.. it needs to be balanced with the showing of the other view..
Who decides what is equal time and for what? Is rush right wing and needs to be "balanced"? is NPR left wing and needs to be balanced? Is newsweek so left wing that it just needs to be double the pages with the new half all written by conservatives?
lazs
disband npr and pbs... or at the very least, remove their govt funding........then bring the debate up again in congress.
-
The "Fairness Doctrine" was in place in this Country up until the late 1980's. I wonder when Rush and his lying ilk started their hate speech?
Anyway all of you guys posting about the good old days need to recall that those days included the fairness doctrine and all that went with it. You want the market to decide what you hear on the radio, and what you will really get is Clear Channel deciding what you listen to on the radio.
Oh, great, the thought police are here :uhoh. And Rush has been tried and convicted of "hate speech" :rolleyes:. "Hate speech" includes supposedly sexist remarks about the goddess Hillary I'm sure :rolleyes:.
Yeah, I like it when the MARKET decides, and not some bureaucrat with little or no knowledge of the subject he is ruling on.
How about this, if YOU want the "left" to get its message out, and it is so important to YOU, why don't YOU pay for it instead of trying to force ME?
Evidently, intelligent people who spend money to buy products listen to conservative talk radio, and it pays the bills for the radio station. However, the left evidently doesn't listen to their own message, and no matter how widely and wildly promoted, not to mention supposedly in demand, their message won't draw flies, much less people who buy products.
It appears that the "mainstream media" has tilted the balance so far that conservative talk radio seems to provide the balance the market demands.
If you do not LIKE conservative talk radio, there's always music, or taxpayer funded public radio with plenty of the message of the "left". So we're already being forced to fund "fairness". But that's never enough. Not for the "left".
-
yep.. I think that the things that are subsidized by taxpayers should be the first target of the "fairness" doctrine.
You would of course have to change NPR and public tv radically. Until you do that there is no reason to even point out that some tiny little corner of radio that doesn't even fake being even handed needs to be muzzled.
The left is infuriated that some tiny little part of the media is not under their control.. it is pitiful.
lazs
-
I think Skuzzy would probably have to hire some libs to post here as this is clearly a conservatively weighted board.
That means the board would likely go away.
Which may well be the point of the whole enterprise. :lol
-
As a Ron Paul supporter I know full well how "unfair" the media can be. That said, I would hate to see mandated "fairness"... Life ain't fair, you gotta take what it gives you and roll with the punches. Don't like what's on the airwaves? Change the channel, start your own station or simply turn the thing off and get your news elsewhere.
The only factor I haven't fully considered is the "who owns the airwaves" question. The way I understand it, We (the People) own the airwaves and the fedgov leases them to the various networks on our behalf. Whether or not there's an argument for equal coverage there I don't know, but it's a factor to consider...
-
The media was no more unfair to Ron Paul than it was to Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, easily the two most electable and mainstream truly conservative Republicans.
-
As a Ron Paul supporter I know full well how "unfair" the media can be. That said, I would hate to see mandated "fairness"... Life ain't fair, you gotta take what it gives you and roll with the punches. Don't like what's on the airwaves? Change the channel, start your own station or simply turn the thing off and get your news elsewhere.
The only factor I haven't fully considered is the "who owns the airwaves" question. The way I understand it, We (the People) own the airwaves and the fedgov leases them to the various networks on our behalf. Whether or not there's an argument for equal coverage there I don't know, but it's a factor to consider...
The citizens don't own the cable networks - and that is where the extremists are
I don't lean left or right - I vote for candidates i have at least a somewhat knowledgeable idea about..if it is a state race and there are candidates I dont know - i dont vote for any on that ballot ... that is where the problem is ... Media doesn't cover the small contests enough.. too many Judges get re-elected that dont belong..too many school superintendents because he/ or she has the 5000 votes needed to get re-elected... we have a lousy electoral process and fairness in media wil help alleviate that... remember those who only lay on your right sides - Ronnie Reagan was a democrat ... and with guys like Rush & Bill around... he never would have been Governor of Cal... and wouldn't have been President.... and wouldn't...... need I say more? You have to think through the process ... not just thump because you were told to by Rush....
This country is full of dopes....
NwBie
:noid
-
I think Skuzzy would probably have to hire some libs to post here as this is clearly a conservatively weighted board.
That means the board would likely go away.
Which may well be the point of the whole enterprise. :lol
Maybe you don't know this, but the Fairness Doctrine applies only to the necessarily limited number of frequencies available on the public airwaves. It has NOTHING to do with print, or cable or internet because those offer almost unlimited opportunities for access.
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)
-
I'm against the Fairness Doctrine. I think it limits freedom of speech. However I do not think politically biased talk shows should be broadcast on Armed Forces Radio.
On a side note, I received my Car Talk cap a few weeks ago from my pledge to NPR.
-
MT..... "yet".
It doesn't apply "yet".
We all know that government has an insatiable appetite for power.
-
It was in place since the 20's and NEVER applied to print journalism due to the unlimited access of this media. why would it change now?
-
they control academia because that's where they all ran to during viet nam.
How many members of the Bush Administration served in Viet Nam again? Zero? And were you aware the most coveted billet there was for avoiding Viet Nam service was a National Guard slot? Of course those were mostly reserved for our political elite- the sons of Governors and Senators.
Sheeesh, Zeta- how can you imply it was only the liberals who avoided VN service? :frown:
-
How many members of the Bush Administration served in Viet Nam again? Zero? And were you aware the most coveted billet there was for avoiding Viet Nam service was a National Guard slot? Of course those were mostly reserved for our political elite- the sons of Governors and Senators.
Sheeesh, Zeta- how can you imply it was only the liberals who avoided VN service? :frown:
I don't recall saying only.
-
.. the left controls all speech and every form of media from print to movies to TV (both broadcast and cable)...
lazs
Welp...So far in this thread we've learned the liberals all avoided Viet Nam while the conservatives rushed to serve and Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, et. al. are flaming liberals.
Sheeesus you guys. Try to keep it real, OK???? Damn.
-
and the left makes stuff up too... don't forget that!
-
I don't recall saying only.
LOL, good answer- you really ARE an attorney. :)
-
The insanely named "Fairness Doctrine" is not about providing equal time on radio. If it were, it would also apply to NPR, the major networks, and newspapers, almost all of which are biased to varying degrees to the left; it doesn't. This is all about silencing a point of view, a set of ideals. Those pushing for this know exactly what would happen, which is the virtual elimination of the only conservative outlets for news and commentary (not counting the internet, which is decidedly more fair and balanced then the traditional news media. The radio stations, forced to either give over half their revenue-generating programming to "liberal" air-time, or to simply not carry any conservative programming at all, will be forced by economics to do the latter.
I personally don't see how this could hold up in the SCOTUS, but I've said that about other issues (ala emminant domain), and been proven horribly wrong. Even the title, "The Fairness Doctrine" is an abomination against the principles laid out in the Constitution.
-
Sheeesh, Zeta- how can you imply it was only the liberals who avoided VN service? :frown:
So you agree that liberals control academia?
-
The insanely named "Fairness Doctrine" is not about providing equal time on radio. If it were, it would also apply to NPR, the major networks, and newspapers, almost all of which are biased to varying degrees to the left; it doesn't. This is all about silencing a point of view, a set of ideals. Those pushing for this know exactly what would happen, which is the virtual elimination of the only conservative outlets for news and commentary (not counting the internet, which is decidedly more fair and balanced then the traditional news media. The radio stations, forced to either give over half their revenue-generating programming to "liberal" air-time, or to simply not carry any conservative programming at all, will be forced by economics to do the latter.
I personally don't see how this could hold up in the SCOTUS, but I've said that about other issues (ala emminant domain), and been proven horribly wrong. Even the title, "The Fairness Doctrine" is an abomination against the principles laid out in the Constitution.
The Fairness Doctrine does not require "equal time" and it never did. It does (did) apply to all broadcast stations and there were conservative talk shows around before the doctrine was eliminated by Reagan et.al.
-
There are several problems with the so called "fairness doctrine", easily illustrated.
I'll use the local talk radio station as an example. I haven't listened as much in the past year or so, the format may have changed.
It starts with 3 hours of LOCAL hosts, Gill and Valentine. Then 3 hours of Liddy, syndicated. Then 3 hours of Ramsey, local but syndicated to other stations. Finally 3 hours of Boortz. So that's 12 hours of prime time air time for talk radio. And when MOST of the audience that pays the bills does most of their listening.
The average listener, if allowed to listen at work, and working the day shift, listens during that period. Then has an hour or so for dinner, and 3 hours of prime time TV. So that's 16 hours, and then bed for 8.
The station, owned by an individual, partnership, or corporation still has 12 hours to fill, usually with Savage and others, that are not as popular. The 12 hours of prime time is where they make their profit. keeping them in business and paying their employees (not just on air employees).
Now comes the "fairness doctrine". To supposedly "balance" 3 hours of Liddy, the station is FORCED to follow Liddy with Franken (or the "left" talk show host of your choice). So for that 3 hours, the listening audience drops, and now the station can't sell prime time advertising, so they lose money. But wait, there's more. The Liddy fan who used to stay tuned for Ramsey tunes out. So Ramsey loses some audience. More money gone. Then Ramsey or Boortz (or Liddy) is bumped from live radio, and the bumped show loses even more. And ONE of the four shows is bumped off of prime time, and loses even more. So now the station loses even more. Finally, the listener gets cheated out of his choice, one of his shows is no longer live, and no longer on during his prime listening time.
So, the station loses money, the show hosts lose money, the advertisers lose money, and the listener loses one of his shows, or more. The only person who MAKES money AND gets what he wants is Franken (or the "left" talk show host of your choice).
Oh, and then to balance another conservative show, the station is eventually forced to add ANOTHER "left" hosted show that doesn't make money. Another 3 hours they lose money and audience, and another 3 hours the listener doesn't get to hear what he tunes in for.
THAT is the "fairness doctrine" in a nut shell. Who is going to PAY for the lost profits? Why, the tax payer, of course. There's only one winner. The "left", who not only gets their "message" out that no one really wants to hear (because if people WANTED to hear it, they'd tune in and make it profitable), but their "hosts" get paid when they can't get a job in radio otherwise (note that "Air America" went bankrupt almost immediately due to a lack of listeners, despite massive promotion).
-
there was a time when the fairness doctrine was..........fair. it initially grew out of a concern that there were a large number of applicants for radio stations......but only a very limited number of available frequencies. the fact that radio was...at that time.....the only electric media source...was a cause for concern as to how news and information would be delivered to the masses. with the advent of cable, satellite, and now the internet........the argument can no longer be made that news or opinion sources are fully monopolized by any one particular view.
the only similar legislation that resembles this were the old rules that applied to broadcasters owning both radio and tv or print media in the same market (town).......and if I recall.......the duopoly rules were changed in the early 90's..permitting companies to control all forms of media...and even monopolize cities. In those days I represented many air personalities and I can recall how companies were coming in and buying up tv and radio stations......firing local air personalties and using network air personalites......as well as cleaning house with radio sales teams...while keeping a select few in once centralized office who sold air time for the radio and tv stations the company had acquired. cox and clear channel come to mind.
-
Not true Captain.
Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.
Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.
According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
-
there was a time when the fairness doctrine was..........fair. it initially grew out of a concern that there were a large number of applicants for radio stations......but only a very limited number of available frequencies. the fact that radio was...at that time.....the only electric media source...was a cause for concern as to how news and information would be delivered to the masses. with the advent of cable, satellite, and now the internet........the argument can no longer be made that news or opinion sources are fully monopolized by any one particular view.
There are still a limited number of available frequencies for broadcast radio and TV.
-
Yeah, it IS true. AT LEAST 3 of those 12 hours WILL be taken. Or do you REALLY expect us to believe that a power hungry bureaucracy trying to further its agenda will be satisfied with less? They NEVER get enough. Never enough taxes, never enough entitlements, never enough government. Their main belief is that anything the private sector can do they can take control of and do better. Or at least better serve their own interests. Sorry, not buying it. No thanks.
-
There are still a limited number of available frequencies for broadcast radio and TV.
understood.......but those are no longer the only media choices.
-
There are still a limited number of available frequencies for broadcast radio and TV.
And the left leaning "mainstream media" controls the news portion of the TV side already, with a few rare exceptions, such as the late Mr. Russert. And the ONLY thing keeping them off of the radio is NO ONE WANTS to listen.
-
understood.......but those are no longer the only media choices.
But those are the only ones affected by the Fairness Doctrine.
-
But those are the only ones affected by the Fairness Doctrine.
and that's what makes it an idea whos time has come and gone. we no longer need to rely just on tv and radio.
-
Maybe you don't know this, but the Fairness Doctrine applies only to the necessarily limited number of frequencies available on the public airwaves. It has NOTHING to do with print, or cable or internet because those offer almost unlimited opportunities for access.
There are more than enough frequencies available to provide whatever people want to listen to. You could add a million more channels to our airwaves and none of them could pay for a liberal biased venue. This is an attempt at government sponsored censorship, plain and simple.
-
Those media choices that are not limited by physics should never be regulated. Those that are necessarily limited by physics MUST be regulated in the public's interest. There is regulation now. If anyone with enough money could come along and start broadcasting there would be chaos. So the government grants licenses to people or corporations allowing them a slice of the public airwaves. If we regulate for the expediency of the corporations to allow them the ability to have unobstructed access to a frequency, we can and should also regulate for the expediency of the people so they can have access to a more complete set of information.
It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
-
Regulation is NOT the cure for every ill, nor every imagined ill. Government regulation has created nearly as many problems as it has ever hoped to solve. The belief that damned near everything MUST be regulated down to minute detail is one of the biggest problems in this country.
The supposed need for the "fairness doctrine" is based on the assumption that the media content is based on what the media wants to sell as opposed to what the audience wants to buy. That assumption is false.
Excessively regulated by the fairness doctrine, the media will become just another poorly run burden on the tax payers, forced upon them by a government out of touch with their wants and needs, and failing to serve them in any manner they will use. And there is no doubt that the regulation WILL be excessive. The government and its associated bureaucracies rarely fail to over regulate anything nearly to death, once they're given a serious amount of control.
-
If the socialists win this one it may well backfire on them. If people find themselves bored enough to actually listen to those with a distorted perspective on reality they may just realize the difference in fundamental goals and get angry enough to act against them.
-
Those media choices that are not limited by physics should never be regulated. Those that are necessarily limited by physics MUST be regulated in the public's interest. There is regulation now. If anyone with enough money could come along and start broadcasting there would be chaos. So the government grants licenses to people or corporations allowing them a slice of the public airwaves. If we regulate for the expediency of the corporations to allow them the ability to have unobstructed access to a frequency, we can and should also regulate for the expediency of the people so they can have access to a more complete set of information.
to an extent you're right......but only as far as the fcc licensing station to act as a "public trustee"...and that has more to do with news and disasters than it does regulating programming content.
-
to an extent you're right......but only as far as the fcc licensing station to act as a "public trustee"...and that has more to do with news and disasters than it does regulating programming content.
Mostly true. I think there may be instances where "entertainment" programming may infringe on the doctrine, but the examples would be few. For example, I would expect a response to an airing of Farenheit 911.
-
I would expect a response to an airing of Farenheit 911.
who'd be left to listen to it? ;)
-
By the way, we still have a rebuttal from the opposing side whenever there is a speech by the President, Vice President, or high ranking member of Congress. On both broadcast radio AND broadcast TV. Bush or Cheney gives a speech and without fail an equal amount of time is given to Reid and/or Pelosi.
-
By the way, we still have a rebuttal from the opposing side whenever there is a speech by the President, Vice President, or high ranking member of Congress. On both broadcast radio AND broadcast TV. Bush or Cheney gives a speech and without fail an equal amount of time is given to Reid and/or Pelosi.
which I have no issue with...they are politicians.