Fairness Doctrine

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
[ ... ]You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. ...</end quote></div>
And you know damn well the only reason you oppose this is because it impedes your quest to shred the Constitution and sell our children into corporate slavery.

Gee, attacking others with inane unsupported accusations is fun. It's so much easier than forming reasoned opinions about the subject and actually addressing others' points.

Oh, so allowing a certain kind of speech that you find undesirable is shredding our constitution? Silly me, I guess my interpretation of the freedom of speech clause was all wrong.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
[ ... ]You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. ...</end quote></div>
And you know damn well the only reason you oppose this is because it impedes your quest to shred the Constitution and sell our children into corporate slavery.

Gee, attacking others with inane unsupported accusations is fun. It's so much easier than forming reasoned opinions about the subject and actually addressing others' points.
</end quote></div>


Oh, so allowing a certain kind of speech that you find undesirable is shredding our constitution? Silly me, I guess my interpretation of the freedom of speech clause was all wrong.

The real gist of it is, they don't really want equal time, they just want to deny an opposing view where they can control it. Look at all their excuses, everyone could be applied to print and TV, especially TV yet none volunteer that medium.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Not necessarily. It could be done at a more local level. It could be based on complaints. It could be left undefined, like defining pornography as "I'll know it when I see it." I'm not advocating any specific approach, just pointing out there are many options that could be considered.

So who would be the arbiter of those complaints?
Let?s say a radio station gets 1000 complaints that they are not proving the correct balance does someone have to listen to them and then dictate to them the changes they have to make?

The mental gymnastics you guys are doing to defend this thing are incredible. In the end no matter how you look at it this will only ?work? if the government starts to decide who can and can?t be on the radio and for how long. That is censorship.

What if Rush starts to call himself a ?liberal?? ?You?re listening to the most listen to liberal in America.? But doesn?t change any of his views. Who gets to decide that he is not a liberal?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
[ ... ]
Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing.</end quote></div>
So do you think it's bad the government regulates the broadcast of pornography? If not, your assertion fails. (I also disagree that the Fairness Doctrine materially regulates speech, but that's covered in other posts.)</end quote></div>
Pornography is another subject. If you expose yourself to a 6 year old, and get arrested is that having your free speech squashed?


We are talking about the government demanding the regulation of political speech.</end quote></div>
You are making two mutually exclusive statements. First, you assert "Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing." (Your exact words.) You then turn around and say that having the government regulate pornography is a good thing. Both statements cannot be true. Either you think censoring porn is a good thing, or you recognize that not all government regulation of speech is bad. Which is it?

I suspect it's the latter, i.e., you recognize the government has a legitimate public interest in regulating some speech. If that's the case, we're just disagreeing on where to draw the line. My position is consistent: controlling porn and requiring balanced coverage of issues on broadcast media both serve the public interest. You seem to hold to a double standard.

I noticed you didn't answer my very simple question.

If you have sex on a busy street corner, in public view, and you get arrested is that having your free speech violated?

 

[Craig234]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Not necessarily. It could be done at a more local level. It could be based on complaints. It could be left undefined, like defining pornography as "I'll know it when I see it." I'm not advocating any specific approach, just pointing out there are many options that could be considered.</end quote></div>
So who would be the arbiter of those complaints?
Let?s say a radio station gets 1000 complaints that they are not proving the correct balance does someone have to listen to them and then dictate to them the changes they have to make?

The mental gymnastics you guys are doing to defend this thing are incredible. In the end no matter how you look at it this will only ?work? if the government starts to decide who can and can?t be on the radio and for how long. That is censorship.

What if Rush starts to call himself a ?liberal?? ?You?re listening to the most listen to liberal in America.? But doesn?t change any of his views. Who gets to decide that he is not a liberal?</end quote></div>

Earth to John, as you do your own 'incredible mentlal gymnastics' to attack it, it worked fine for decades without your doom predictions happening.

Ah crap, says the signal from Earth still can't reach him.

I'm not even arguing in favor of the fairness doctrine, just agianst bad arguments against it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is a basic fallacy of the right wing. They lack any concept of the 'public good', and can't tell the difference between 'what the market wants' and any higher standard.

The difference between the old educational shows for children, and garbage made to sell toys and sugary foods to kids, are equally meritorious in their world, 'market driven'.

Want to have a national forest, or pave it for condos? Let the market decide.
<edited for length>
It was already in place working just fine for decades, disproving their claim with that thing they don't like much, facts.

Craig get off your high horse with the ?lack any concept of the public good? crap. That is your opinion and yours only.

As for the ?working fine for decades? line?
When the fairness doctrine existed NO ONE listened to AM radio.
Once it went away listener hip exploded.
This is a perfect example of what happens when the government tries to control choice. When the government limits the amount of choice the market stagnates. But when the free market is allowed to reign choice explodes.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Darwin333

Once again I will ask, if you truly believe the following:

"but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differing views"

Then why are we stopping at AM radio? AM radio is the lowest tech and probably the least used medium that the public uses to gather its news. If this is about best serving the publics best interest then why are you not advocating that the fairness doctrine apply to all of the mediums (Internet, newspaper, cable news etc.)?</end quote></div>


There are a lot of assumptions here that I don't know to be true. In any case, the reason why it doesn't extend to Internet, newpaper, etc is because AM radio is considered PUBLIC AIRWAVES which are a SCARCE resource.

I can't say it any more clearly than the Supreme Court:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." -quoted from wiki article (Fairness Doctrine).

I would like to please ask respond directly do this statement.

My essential point: Radio is a scarce informational resource regulated by the gov't who grants licenses to broadcasters. It is my contention that the gov't has a right to break up an informational monopoly by applying the Fairness Doctrine.

I completely understand the public airwave point. However, if this is truly in the best interests of the public then the very same argument should hold true for the Internet, correct?

The argument that I see brought forward the most is that the public is best served by getting "both" sides of the argument. Yet in order to obtain that they are going to use the least used form of media that we have in the "information age"? The argument makes sense but the method does not. How many people do YOU know that get their news from syndicated AM radio? Heck, my local AM talkshows have switched over to FM so they can put more local content on the air while having the syndicated shows on AM.

We have a plethora of different places to get our news from and I do not understand how anyone could say that it is only in the publics interest for AM to give both sides of the story.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Darwin333


I completely understand the public airwave point. However, if this is truly in the best interests of the public then the very same argument should hold true for the Internet, correct?

The argument that I see brought forward the most is that the public is best served by getting "both" sides of the argument. Yet in order to obtain that they are going to use the least used form of media that we have in the "information age"? The argument makes sense but the method does not. How many people do YOU know that get their news from syndicated AM radio? Heck, my local AM talkshows have switched over to FM so they can put more local content on the air while having the syndicated shows on AM.

We have a plethora of different places to get our news from and I do not understand how anyone could say that it is only in the publics interest for AM to give both sides of the story.

I agrue that it would not apply to the internet because it is not a scarce resource in the same way as radio. It would not apply to TV either.

I know ppl get their new from any sources, but I agrue the one particular Voice does not have right to control one particular medium, that is, the radio airwaves.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Not necessarily. It could be done at a more local level. It could be based on complaints. It could be left undefined, like defining pornography as "I'll know it when I see it." I'm not advocating any specific approach, just pointing out there are many options that could be considered.</end quote></div>
So who would be the arbiter of those complaints?
Let?s say a radio station gets 1000 complaints that they are not proving the correct balance does someone have to listen to them and then dictate to them the changes they have to make?

The mental gymnastics you guys are doing to defend this thing are incredible. In the end no matter how you look at it this will only ?work? if the government starts to decide who can and can?t be on the radio and for how long. That is censorship.

What if Rush starts to call himself a ?liberal?? ?You?re listening to the most listen to liberal in America.? But doesn?t change any of his views. Who gets to decide that he is not a liberal?</end quote></div>

Earth to John, as you do your own 'incredible mentlal gymnastics' to attack it, it worked fine for decades without your doom predictions happening.

Ah crap, says the signal from Earth still can't reach him.

I'm not even arguing in favor of the fairness doctrine, just agianst bad arguments against it.

Really, can you name some of the hot political commentators that existed under the fairness doctrine?



There weren't any, and this is why.



Instead of trying to find 'balance' for every single political commentary, it was easier not to have ANY political commentary.

So in the interest of 'fairness' nothing got discussed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Earth to John, as you do your own 'incredible mentlal gymnastics' to attack it, it worked fine for decades without your doom predictions happening.

if by working fine you mean that it completely came through on the underlying goal of keeping political discussions off the airwaves then yes, it worked fine.

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
I agrue that it would not apply to the internet because it is not a scarce resource in the same way as radio. It would not apply to TV either.

I know ppl get their new from any sources, but I agrue the one particular Voice does not have right to control one particular medium, that is, the radio airwaves.

TV is just radio with a video stream rather than merely voice. the audio stream is FM radio and you could pick it up just fine with an FM receiver in that band. at least, before digital TV.

and no one voice is controlling radio. anyone who can draw decent ratings can get air time.


edit: this quote bug blows ass

 

[Mxylplyx]

That liberals only want this applied to AM radio is irrefutable proof of their intentions. This is very reminiscent of the tactics Hugo Chavez and Vladamir Putin have used to silence opposition in their countries. It's sickening. That this is even being discussed by some politicians is sickening, and frightening.

 

[theeedude]

I guess we'll have to wait till Hillary is president to do something about the unfairness on public airwaves.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I guess we'll have to wait till Hillary is president to do something about the unfairness on public airwaves.

And then she'll declare herself president for life. You'd probably support that too.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Darwin333


I completely understand the public airwave point. However, if this is truly in the best interests of the public then the very same argument should hold true for the Internet, correct?

The argument that I see brought forward the most is that the public is best served by getting "both" sides of the argument. Yet in order to obtain that they are going to use the least used form of media that we have in the "information age"? The argument makes sense but the method does not. How many people do YOU know that get their news from syndicated AM radio? Heck, my local AM talkshows have switched over to FM so they can put more local content on the air while having the syndicated shows on AM.

We have a plethora of different places to get our news from and I do not understand how anyone could say that it is only in the publics interest for AM to give both sides of the story.</end quote></div>

I agrue that it would not apply to the internet because it is not a scarce resource in the same way as radio. It would not apply to TV either.

I know ppl get their new from any sources, but I agrue the one particular Voice does not have right to control one particular medium, that is, the radio airwaves.

I would retort that broadcast TV is actually more "scarce" of a resource then AM radio is because almost every single station is a nationally broadcast signal. Whereas AM radio often has many local stations with their own programing as well as a few stations broadcasting syndicated programs.

Further, how does one particular voice control AM radio while still maintaining your "scarce resource" argument? If its only a single syndicated program then there is plenty of bandwidth (or spectrum?) left to allow opposing views to try their hand in the marketplace. I can pick up 10 AM stations and only two of them broadcast syndicated programing.

Speaking of marketplace, what happens if these "opposing views" do not get ratings that will attract sponsors and therefor fail, should the government use tax dollars in order to keep those stations afloat (i.e. Air America)?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I guess we'll have to wait till Hillary is president to do something about the unfairness on public airwaves.

My ignore list grows yet again!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I guess we'll have to wait till Hillary is president to do something about the unfairness on public airwaves.</end quote></div>

My ignore list grows yet again!

With informative comments like these, please don't take me off it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Bowfinger has left the building. He was last seen sitting in an apple tree with the soles of his shoes cut off and playing the flute.

Cognitive dissonance has taken its toll.

 

[ProfJohn]

Look... let's bring the rule back so the courts can slap it down and get it over with.

The ONLY way to make this work is to have some government employee listen to AM radio and classify each host?s political leanings.
Now as every thread on media bias proves: what one person calls bias another calls the ?truth.? Would be the same thing here.

Just go back a few months and you will find people on here who claimed that Keith Olberman was speaking the ?truth? but Bill O?Reilly was a crazy conservative.
It is all a matter of personal opinion

 

[JD50]

I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private. Using Bowfingers all or none argument when it comes to the government regulating speech, I'm sure that Bowfinger would have a problem with HBO airing a series showing explicit child porn, live executions, rape, or murder. So obviously he does believe that private forms of media need to be regulated somewhat as well. Maybe I'm wrong and Bowfinger would have no problem with women being raped on cable TV, please correct me if I am.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Bowfinger has left the building. He was last seen sitting in an apple tree with the soles of his shoes cut off and playing the flute.

Cognitive dissonance has taken its toll.

Fluff off. We've established early in this thread that you are a waste of electrons.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
That liberals only want this applied to AM radio is irrefutable proof of their intentions. This is very reminiscent of the tactics Hugo Chavez and Vladamir Putin have used to silence opposition in their countries. It's sickening. That this is even being discussed by some politicians is sickening, and frightening.

That you continue to spout lies that have been addressed many times is irrefutable proof you haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Craig234
Earth to John, as you do your own 'incredible mentlal gymnastics' to attack it, it worked fine for decades without your doom predictions happening.

if by working fine you mean that it completely came through on the underlying goal of keeping political discussions off the airwaves then yes, it worked fine.

There was plenty of political discussion on the airwaves then. What there wasn't, as best I can remember, is the kind of angry, highly-partisan venom that is so popular today. I think that's because there was no demand for it in those days. The culture was different. Can you show otherwise?

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
I agrue that it would not apply to the internet because it is not a scarce resource in the same way as radio. It would not apply to TV either.

I know ppl get their new from any sources, but I agrue the one particular Voice does not have right to control one particular medium, that is, the radio airwaves.

TV is just radio with a video stream rather than merely voice. the audio stream is FM radio and you could pick it up just fine with an FM receiver in that band. at least, before digital TV.

and no one voice is controlling radio. anyone who can draw decent ratings can get air time.

As mentioned before, I agree a Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast media, including television. The principle is the same.

edit: this quote bug blows ass

Amen

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
I completely understand the public airwave point. However, if this is truly in the best interests of the public then the very same argument should hold true for the Internet, correct? ...

No. The Internet is not a scarce resource nor is it a public resource. There is no need for that sort of regulation since (almost literally) anyone can be heard. More importantly, since the Internet is largely privately-owned, government regulation would infringe upon free speech rights (with extremely narrow exceptions).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is a basic fallacy of the right wing. They lack any concept of the 'public good', and can't tell the difference between 'what the market wants' and any higher standard.

The difference between the old educational shows for children, and garbage made to sell toys and sugary foods to kids, are equally meritorious in their world, 'market driven'.

Want to have a national forest, or pave it for condos? Let the market decide.
<edited for length>
It was already in place working just fine for decades, disproving their claim with that thing they don't like much, facts.

Craig get off your high horse with the ?lack any concept of the public good? crap. That is your opinion and yours only.

As for the ?working fine for decades? line?
When the fairness doctrine existed NO ONE listened to AM radio.

That would be false. AM radio thrived for decades under the Fairness Doctrine. It's popularity ultimately waned due to the increasing penetration of FM radio and the rise of personal & auto tape players.

Once it went away listener hip exploded.
This is a perfect example of what happens when the government tries to control choice. When the government limits the amount of choice the market stagnates. But when the free market is allowed to reign choice explodes.

Total nonsense. Correlation does not prove causation. In this case, you are drawing a ridiculous connection with no basis in fact whatsoever.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I noticed you didn't answer my very simple question.

If you have sex on a busy street corner, in public view, and you get arrested is that having your free speech violated?

With all due respect, your "simple question" is dumb, and has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Please focus on the topic at hand instead of spiralling out into ever less relevant diversions.