Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: sluggish on September 21, 2008, 09:06:41 AM
-
I've seen leftists claim that the Democrats are the party that will protect their constitutional rights and yet their party would love to bring back this little gem in order to silence conservative talk radio. When you're concerned about rights being protected, are you concerned about ALL constitutional rights or just the ones YOU find impotant or just YOUR personal right (to hell with everyone else)? Remember, that the freedom of speech not only gives you the right to say whatever you want in a public forum, but that YOU must also TOLERATE anything that anyone else may say in a public forum.
The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there is “a view” and “an opposing view”. That’s silly. Let’s take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:
"It’s real and we gotta do something now before the ocean swallows us.”
“It’s real and it’s bad, and we’re causing it, but there isn’t much we can do about it.”
“It’s probably real, and it’s probably our fault, so let’s do the best we can to mitigate it.”
“It’s real and it’s bad, but it’s a natural phenomenon and people don’t have much to do with it.”
“It’s not real. It’s a best a minor fluctuation in climate.”
“It’s real, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so sit back and enjoy it.”
(Please no nit-picking over whether this is a correct or comprehensive list. Global warming is just an illustrative issue - the topic at hand is the Fairness Doctrine.)
If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, and you went on the radio with, say, #2, which of the others is the opposing view? Well, to some extent, they all are.
Let’s say the topic is Federal Program X. The five possible generic views would be:
• Spend a whole lot more on it
• Spend somewhat more on it
• Spend the same amount on it
• Spend somewhat less on it
• Spend nothing on it - abolish the program
If there’s a controversy over the federal program, which views are going to get presented under the Fairness Doctrine? Well, ultimately, that’s up to a government bureaucrat. Does anyone really think the “abolish the program” option is going to be one of the two preferred views? A government bureaucrat, or his proxy in the media, is naturally predisposed to believe in government effectiveness, so the bottom two views will usually be the ones that are completely ignored.
In the typical case of a social program, it boils down to a Democrat arguing that we should be spending somewhat more, and a Republican arguing that we should be spending the same. The roles might be reversed, if it’s something related to defense or corporate subsidies; though in that case, the “spend less” option would probably get more credibility, and the “spend a whole lot more” option would be considered fringe.
We don’t even debate the “abolish the program” option much now. Under the Fairness Doctrine, it disappears completely. And the growth of government goes unquestioned.
And that leads to what I consider the really pernicious effect of the Fairness Doctrine. By restricting the range of views down to the mushy middle, the debate becomes utterly boring. No one wants to hear two drones, one of which wants to spend a little more, with the other defending the status quo.
Of course, if the common citizen tunes the debate out because it’s boring, that leaves the field to the activists. Most of them are on the left, so the left is just fine with boring policies debates. They don’t want dittoheads emailing Congress because Rush got them pumped up about something.
I think a lot of support for the Fairness Doctrine is ultimately based on a contempt for the opinions of the common citizen. You can see it in the blather about “corporate influence”. The presumption is that common folks can simply be manipulated into any opinion their corporate masters desire.
I notice that they don’t seem to have any issues with how much money George Soros spends on politics. And that’s explicitly political spending. Talk radio, as McQ pointed out, is a money-making enterprise, and is not an explicit subsidy for a political viewpoint. Yet, because talk radio engages a swath of the common citizens in ways the left cannot, even with Soros’ help, the left is ready to throttle it. After all, those ignorant dittoheads don’t really deserve a place in the debate, do they? They’re just being manipulated into their opinions by corporate influence anyway.
I don’t see how someone can have such contempt for the common citizen and still believe in the founding principles of this nation. That’s why I think it’s easy for the left to jettison free speech whenever it’s convenient. From campus speech codes to campaign finance reform to the Fairness Doctrine, the left always seems to come down on the side that says their political opponents need to be throttled. And then, they twist themselves into pretzels pretending that they’re not violating free speech.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5270
I would love to read some serious views FOR bringing back the "fairness" doctrine.
-
Why is this called a Fairness Doctrine? The name seems a little misleading to me after I read the whole quote. "Excluded Alternative" is an accurate description, albeit without the pejorative flair of "Fairness Doctrine."
What the heck is the left going to do to right-wing Talk Radio? :huh
-
The left only controls the schools and the movies and 99% of all TV and entertainment...
The right has fox news and talk radio.. This is the reason that their message of peaceful socialist liberalism is not being heard.. with all the right wing bigot racist control in our lives the fairness doctrine is needed.
lazs
-
Why is this called a Fairness Doctrine? The name seems a little misleading to me after I read the whole quote. "Excluded Alternative" is an accurate description, albeit without the pejorative flair of "Fairness Doctrine."
What the heck is the left going to do to right-wing Talk Radio? :huh
By legislating "opposing" views by broadcasters (telling them, "if you've got a righty talkshow, you've got to have a lefty talkshow for balance"), it would make it such a hassle to put forth what some might consider to be "extreme" viewpoints that said broadcasters would decide to scrap political commentary all together.
-
The left has tried the talk show route and it has failed miserably. Actually most talk show hosts wanted to succeed. The only show that succeeds, if you can call it that, is the one supported by government, PBS. Oh they have to beg for money every year.
-
Ohhhh, now I know what you're getting at. This all goes back to public ownership of the airwaves and what is in the "public interest." I admit I know very little about these arguments, but it's intuitively plausible to me that it's in the public interest to broadcast a wide range of views. That said, liberal talk radio is yet to be financially successful, so far as I know.
-
Ohhhh, now I know what you're getting at. This all goes back to public ownership of the airwaves and what is in the "public interest." I admit I know very little about these arguments, but it's intuitively plausible to me that it's in the public interest to broadcast a wide range of views. That said, liberal talk radio is yet to be financially successful, so far as I know.
Free speech is in the public interest. Let as many voices be heard as possible. Legislating "fairness" does nothing but stifle free speech.
-
Thefairness doctrine is nothing more than 2 kids in a playground pointing at each other blubbering that life is unfair
this nation has become nothing but - whiners - who can yell and stomp their feet the loudest
there is more than enough opposite viewpoints to all statements and beliefs on the intardnet, tv, radio
-
I notice that some radio stations broadcast Sunday morning church services. In the interest of balance, they should be required to allow some Satan worshipers to state their side of things.
Also, for every hour of Rock music that is broadcast, they must broadcast an hour of some 80 year old man saying "This music is crap! It only has 3 chords! Why in my day, we had Glen Miller..."
-
Thefairness doctrine is nothing more than 2 kids in a playground pointing at each other blubbering that life is unfair
this nation has become nothing but - whiners - who can yell and stomp their feet the loudest
there is more than enough opposite viewpoints to all statements and beliefs on the intardnet, tv, radio
This i can agree with.
-
Also, for every hour of Rock music that is broadcast, they must broadcast an hour of some 80 year old man saying "This music is crap! It only has 3 chords! Why in my day, we had Glen Miller..."
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I see you have met my Dad.
shamus
-
Free speech is in the public interest. Let as many voices be heard as possible. Legislating "fairness" does nothing but stifle free speech.
:aok
-
Huh. Nobody can argue in favor of this?
-
I COULD argue in favor of it Sluggish, but I won't. Give me something fun and mildly defensible to argue in favor of instead, like grave robbing or cannibalism.
There wouldn't be enough hot water and soap in the WORLD to make me feel clean after arguing in favor of something like this.
-
Huh. Nobody can argue in favor of this?
Damnit, Arlo was png'd wasn't he?
-
Fairness Docrtrine
Six Liberals and one conservitive voteing on which show Hosts use the dead microphones by LAW on the air each day or be cited by the FCC.
Ooops, sorry those Hosts all got fired for not bringing in listeners and advatisers because no one heard their message.
-
I don't see how forcing privately owned broadcast stations to present opposing "political viewpoints" equates to protecting "freedom of speech."
-
I don't see how forcing privately owned broadcast stations to present opposing "political viewpoints" equates to protecting "freedom of speech."
The argument is that the the airwaves are public.
Weak argument if you ask me....let the market determine which shows succeed and which fail.
-
Damnit, Arlo was png'd wasn't he?
No.
-
I notice that some radio stations broadcast Sunday morning church services. In the interest of balance, they should be required to allow some Satan worshipers to state their side of things.
Also, for every hour of Rock music that is broadcast, they must broadcast an hour of some 80 year old man saying "This music is crap! It only has 3 chords! Why in my day, we had Glen Miller..."
Dont have a problem with Satan Worshipers they just try to kill you. they dont bore you to death trying to convert you and telling you that you are going to hell :)
-
Things were better when we had the fairness doctrine.
-
Dont have a problem with Satan Worshipers they just try to kill you. they dont bore you to death trying to convert you and telling you that you are going to hell :)
Mainstream Satanism is actually a let down. Their tenets read more like the Libertarian party's than anything else. Things like "Don't waste kindness on ingrates." Ooh. Eeeeeeeeeeeeevil. :rolleyes:
-
Things were better when we had the fairness doctrine.
The practical impossibility of actually presenting all opinions by itself makes fairness doctrine a farce.
-
Things were better when we had the fairness doctrine.
Lol until then, conservatives had to meet in dingy bars and basements...always changing locations so the MAN wouldn't catch :) them
-
Things were better when we had the fairness doctrine.
MT,
Without government forcing the free market to shoot themselves in the foot, Liberal talk shows don't have the listener base nor the advertiser base. Liberal talk shows as competitive enterprises are not listened to, loose advertisers like a hole in a bucket and fail unless heavily under written with either money from Soros or taxpayer funds that 100% are used for liberal agendas on NPR, not across all points of view as the federal mandaite for operation requires. Liberal radio ratings are lower than barnicles on sunken ships in the Marianahs trench.
So its unfair that you Liberals cannot sell the majority of American listeners in plain language on your ideas in a free market open competitive setting? You guys are failing to sell your ideas, not the system failing to bring you listeners. Why do grown American adults choose to turn Liberal radio off as a free speach choice? What are Liberals selling that smells so bad American adults turn your radio stations off and advertisers run away from you?
Common MT tell us why Liberal radio fails with the majority of American listeners......remember econ 101...to succeed you need a message and a product your audience agrees with or is looking for over all other competing products. Why does your message fail every single time it competes in the free market?
1. Tell us the truth without saying the majority of adults in america are stooopid.
2. Call me names and change the subject.
3. Wimp out and not answer because the real answer is obvious by the peoples choice of what they want to listen to.
-
What about satellite radio? They're not using any of the public's precious bandwidth. Would they still be required to offer opposing viewpoints? Would they have to on each channel? Right now Sirius has "Patriot" (right wing) and "Left" (left wing) channels. Would that be considered offering opposing viewpoints? What if people just choose not to listen? If there's 350k people listening to the righty channel, and only 100k listening to the lefty channel, is the opposing viewpoint being properly stated? Could they be sued because by looking at ratings it's obvious that Sirius "just isn't trying very hard" to offer opposing viewpoints?
Am I the only one who can see what kind of a ridiculous quagmire this stupid law would create? Does anyone know whose idea it was to try to resurrect this absolutely moronic attempt to squelch free speech? Shouldn't this person or these people be fired and ridiculed?
And to the left-wing members of this forum that are avoiding this thread like the plague; your silence speaks volumes.
-
YES!!!
I would love the Fairness Docrtrine. The I could watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and the other leftwing/rightwing news people when they would have to let the other side talk on how good ther eparty is. It would be a blast! They all would be in tears.
Fair Media? Never going to happen. This is another waist of time. Besides someone is going to put a rider on the bill for something stupid and the Pres will have to veto it or the Congress will let it die.
Happy Monday!!
-
My biggest problem with right wing radio is, it gets broadcast on armed forces radio. Most hosts, Rush, Sean, will tell you they are not news casters but are in the entertainment business. I do not support the Fairness Doctrine, if you don't want to listen, then don't tune in.
-
As much as some of you may not like it, so called liberalism does pretty well in the market place of ideas in this country, but just not through the medium of talk radio. Most liberals would listen to public radio, read a magazine, a website or a blog long before they would tune into a liberal AM talk radio program. It's just the format itself that doesn't work. Talk radio is full of bombast, one-sided skewering and advertisements, not to mention the overdone voice with musical overlay that announces the show...followed by the ritualistic listener ankle-humping of the host. No thanks.
Come to think of it, what's ironic about the fairness doctrine is that the very idea of talk-radio is not to give voice to the other side of an issue (if you disagree with the host, he can yell at you and hang up). So we're going to have opposing viewpoint talk shows whose very purpose is to deny that the other has a right to exist. Oh brother. :rolleyes:
-
anax.. you are somewhat correct.. NPR, despite their protests to the contrary.. is pretty far left.. it is supported by government and shameless drives and left wing sponsors.
It does not respect anyone unless they are a woman or have a brit accent or some kind of speech impediment.
It is painful to listen to and often.. you can listen for minutes at a time and realize that all you heard was a drone. No matter how interesting the subject matter.. they can make it boring.
On the other hand... real liberal talk show type stations sound merely shrill and womanly..
lazs
-
yadda yadda... dirka dirka
I could care less if liberal talk radio exists or not. All I said was that things were better when we had the fairness doctrine. There were radio talk shows before Rush, believe it or not. The doctrine never called for "equal time". Don't you think the American people deserve accuracy from the media using the airwaves CONTROLLED by our government?
-
I could care less if liberal talk radio exists or not. All I said was that things were better when we had the fairness doctrine. There were radio talk shows before Rush, believe it or not. The doctrine never called for "equal time". Don't you think the American people deserve accuracy from the media using the airwaves CONTROLLED by our government?
Do you think the new version of the "fairness" doctrine is designed to ensure that liberal talk radio exists or to ensure that right-wing talk radio is squelched? As an American would you stand up for the right of Rush to be a blubbering idiot?
-
I could care less if liberal talk radio exists or not. All I said was that things were better when we had the fairness doctrine. There were radio talk shows before Rush, believe it or not. The doctrine never called for "equal time". Don't you think the American people deserve accuracy from the media using the airwaves CONTROLLED by our government?
Do you actually think or believe the "Fairness Doctrine" will actually ensure, or for that matter even promote media accuracy? Really? :lol Honestly? :D Seriously? :rofl
-
It will certainly improve on the current divisive brand of reporting.
-
It will certainly improve on the current divisive brand of reporting.
Dream on.
-
Palin thinks the book, Valis, is neat. :O
-
Hey look at me!
p.s. Vote Palin!
-
MT.. you do not think that it will improve the "divisive brand of reporting" you are for bringing us all together like osamabama wants to "bring us all together" once we are forced to do it his way..we will be all together..
It is the typical liberal democrat way of bringing us all together.. all our students are brought together by having only one school system run by liberals.
I like a divisive media.. I would kill to get a more divisive media on the TV.. not less... I want to hear both sides not CNN's side and MSNBC's side and every other side save Fox that is exactly the same liberal drivel.
You don't want fairness.. you want a muzzle.
lazs
-
MT.. you do not think that it will improve the "divisive brand of reporting" you are for bringing us all together like osamabama wants to "bring us all together" once we are forced to do it his way..we will be all together..
It is the typical liberal democrat way of bringing us all together.. all our students are brought together by having only one school system run by liberals.
I like a divisive media.. I would kill to get a more divisive media on the TV.. not less... I want to hear both sides not CNN's side and MSNBC's side and every other side save Fox that is exactly the same liberal drivel.
You don't want fairness.. you want a muzzle.
lazs
"The true intention of the sincere man is to erect his beliefs into law."
I once got called out by some dude who used to post in here for making such a deep statement that I in no way could possibly understand.