Fairness Doctrine

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: umbrella39


Yeah, the libs are really in a tizzy because Air America failed to attract mindless sheep like conservative radio does. Congrats. I can see why conservative radio succeeds esp. with some of the grazers that post here.

:roll:

And therein lies your answer as to why liberal radio can't compete. Think about it for a minute. Talk radio in and of itself is mostly boring and drivel. So to make money, they (radio station owners, etc.) put on shows that are controversial, loud, decisive, and very opinionated and outlandish. They put on people like Stern or O&A because they draw a crowd with their antics and such, which brings in advertising and $$$ (the bottom line). And when you cross over into the political arena of talk radio what are people more likely to listen to? The conservative personalities who come across as extremely opinionated and controversial. This is what entertains the majority of America. While liberal radio could be construed as controversial they just don't have a single personality who speaks with the confidence and decisiveness of the conservative main players. People as a whole eat that type of stuff up (as we know from past history; cue Godwin's law ). I happened to tune into Hannity last week for about an hour on the drive home from work. And in all seriousness, in one hours time he must have used the phrases "you are a Great American", "our great nation", "in our defense of freedom", etc. no less than 50x. Now whether his views are right or wrong, different from yours or not, the average American eats that stuff up and hangs on every word, because it gives them a feeling of patriotism, worth, and assuages the ego.

 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo


Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>

24 hours a day of whining, blaming America, and asking for free handouts; Gee I can't see how this failed.</end quote></div>

I'm not really surprised Air America didn't work. While I believe that there is some artificial anti-competitive behavior going on, I'm also not sure there is that big of a market for liberal talk radio. Liberals, for the most part, like to think for themselves and not be told what to think. Sure, a lot of liberals LIKE Al Franken, but that doesn't mean we want to listen to him every day, telling us how we should feel about various things that happen in the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to THRIVE on being told what to think. And that's really all talk radio is. Liberal radio MIGHT do better with alternative reporting rather than commentary, but Air America was really the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, and that isn't really something designed to appeal to the liberal mindset.

I know, I know, unfair stereotypes and all that. But while Air America might just be run by people who don't know how to run a business, ask yourselves why the only regular, well know, liberal commentator on radio or TV is Alan Colmes (and he hardly qualifies)? It doesn't seem real likely that ALL the liberal commentators have bad business sense...so there must be some other reason the airwaves are flooded with loud mouthed conservatives and you have to really hunt to find a liberal.

I believe you hit the nail on the head. Liberals don't want some loud mouth telling them what they should think. But apparantly there's a chunk of the of conservative audience who want just that. Though I'm sure there's a good deal of conservatives that think Rush and others are just as full of crap as I do.
 

QTArrhythmic

Senior member
Sep 14, 2002
229
0
0


So how do you solve the problem? By taking the rights away from some in favor of others?




You're not taking away anyone's rights; you are simily not allowing anyone to have a monopoly on distrubtion of information.

OT

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: thraashman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo


Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>

24 hours a day of whining, blaming America, and asking for free handouts; Gee I can't see how this failed.</end quote></div>

I'm not really surprised Air America didn't work. While I believe that there is some artificial anti-competitive behavior going on, I'm also not sure there is that big of a market for liberal talk radio. Liberals, for the most part, like to think for themselves and not be told what to think. Sure, a lot of liberals LIKE Al Franken, but that doesn't mean we want to listen to him every day, telling us how we should feel about various things that happen in the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to THRIVE on being told what to think. And that's really all talk radio is. Liberal radio MIGHT do better with alternative reporting rather than commentary, but Air America was really the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, and that isn't really something designed to appeal to the liberal mindset.

I know, I know, unfair stereotypes and all that. But while Air America might just be run by people who don't know how to run a business, ask yourselves why the only regular, well know, liberal commentator on radio or TV is Alan Colmes (and he hardly qualifies)? It doesn't seem real likely that ALL the liberal commentators have bad business sense...so there must be some other reason the airwaves are flooded with loud mouthed conservatives and you have to really hunt to find a liberal.</end quote></div>

I believe you hit the nail on the head. Liberals don't want some loud mouth telling them what they should think. But apparantly there's a chunk of the of conservative audience who want just that. Though I'm sure there's a good deal of conservatives that think Rush and others are just as full of crap as I do.



Keep it up, ya'll might even convince yourself. If you think talk radio is just about a loud mouth spouting some ideaology your in the same boat as the failures at Air America who didn't have a clue either.

See, its real easy to demonize a group by zeroing in a few extremes. That is the method of the closed minded. Another sure example is character assasination, going after the messenger instead of message. Two for two I would say after reading some of the replies.

Then again, after being on this board for a long time I have come to not expect more out of too many here which is really disappointing.


The point of the original post is that Congress is more than willing to take an avenue of free speech away because it CAUSED THEM GRIEF.

Since quite a few of ya'll are obviously blinded by your petty hate, pretty irrational too, your more than willing to sell out someone's elses speech because don't agree with. What a dangerous path to get on to.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: thraashman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo


Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>

24 hours a day of whining, blaming America, and asking for free handouts; Gee I can't see how this failed.</end quote></div>

I'm not really surprised Air America didn't work. While I believe that there is some artificial anti-competitive behavior going on, I'm also not sure there is that big of a market for liberal talk radio. Liberals, for the most part, like to think for themselves and not be told what to think. Sure, a lot of liberals LIKE Al Franken, but that doesn't mean we want to listen to him every day, telling us how we should feel about various things that happen in the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to THRIVE on being told what to think. And that's really all talk radio is. Liberal radio MIGHT do better with alternative reporting rather than commentary, but Air America was really the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, and that isn't really something designed to appeal to the liberal mindset.

I know, I know, unfair stereotypes and all that. But while Air America might just be run by people who don't know how to run a business, ask yourselves why the only regular, well know, liberal commentator on radio or TV is Alan Colmes (and he hardly qualifies)? It doesn't seem real likely that ALL the liberal commentators have bad business sense...so there must be some other reason the airwaves are flooded with loud mouthed conservatives and you have to really hunt to find a liberal.</end quote></div>

I believe you hit the nail on the head. Liberals don't want some loud mouth telling them what they should think. But apparantly there's a chunk of the of conservative audience who want just that. Though I'm sure there's a good deal of conservatives that think Rush and others are just as full of crap as I do.</end quote></div>



Keep it up, ya'll might even convince yourself. If you think talk radio is just about a loud mouth spouting some ideaology your in the same boat as the failures at Air America who didn't have a clue either.

See, its real easy to demonize a group by zeroing in a few extremes. That is the method of the closed minded. Another sure example is character assasination, going after the messenger instead of message. Two for two I would say after reading some of the replies.
What are you yammering about? This isn't about focusing on some conservative loser who posts on the internet because it's easier than arguing against the message. Hannity, Limbaugh, etc, etc, aren't self declared spokesmen for the right...they have a large enough audience that I think it's very relevant to consider them to be "leaders" in the conservative movement. I understand your point, but if Hannity and Limbaugh are just a few extremists, why are they so popular among a wide range of conservatives?
Then again, after being on this board for a long time I have come to not expect more out of too many here which is really disappointing.

The point of the original post is that Congress is more than willing to take an avenue of free speech away because it CAUSED THEM GRIEF.

Since quite a few of ya'll are obviously blinded by your petty hate, pretty irrational too, your more than willing to sell out someone's elses speech because don't agree with. What a dangerous path to get on to.

I don't see them taking away anything...NOBODY is proposing restricting what Rush Limbaugh says on the radio, it's just a proposal to insure that he's not the ONLY person on the air.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Maybe if we had fair and honest discussion on the radio, we wouldn't be in Iraq now.
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
Originally posted by: thraashman


I believe you hit the nail on the head. Liberals don't want some loud mouth telling them what they should think. But apparantly there's a chunk of the of conservative audience who want just that. Though I'm sure there's a good deal of conservatives that think Rush and others are just as full of crap as I do.

I agree, I've only listened to Air America once and I actually thought that it was a right-wing station for a second. Not really because of the content but the delivery. After I heard the station ID I knew why they were having such a hard time.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
This issue has been riased her before.


For all those who favor this law, wouldn't it also apply to broadcast TV? I watch Boston Legal, 90% of the current issues it presents would be from the liberal point of view. In one story arc it showed a Christian conservative, home schooled of course, not only involved in murder but also an incestuous relationship. This is on the airwaves, would this show, even though its fiction, still have to have its political view points 'balanced' so to be fair?

How would that balance come about? An hour match for every hour that is broadcast? Would Rush need to submit his topic for the hour weeks in advanced to a government agency to find out what an exceptable counter point is? Then find some one to deliver that counter point with equal time on the air?

Who says there are only two sides to every issue? very narrow minded.

If a law like this pasted, and survived the USSC, the result would be what we had before: bland talk radio. No broadcaster will want to put on 12 hours of the non-profit air time AND deal with the hassle of government regulation.

This is a stupid law that in the end will limit people's choices.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
It is a free market and there is plenty of space for liberals to have their own talk radio.

It isn't Rush or Hannity's fault that no one listens to Air America. You people really scare me sometimes, you really do. I love how you can talk about Bush eroding your civil rights out of one cheek while you are rationalizing squelching freedom of speech out the other.

Truly comical.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
We need each station to present opposing views, not just the market overall.

Why?

The sad part is I can gurantee 90% of the people in favor of this law right now would be against it if talk radio's demographic were different. In other words they acknowledge the intent and support it because their guys will win.

 

QTArrhythmic

Senior member
Sep 14, 2002
229
0
0
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Deudalus
It is a free market and there is plenty of space for liberals to have their own talk radio.

It isn't Rush or Hannity's fault that no one listens to Air America. You people really scare me sometimes, you really do. I love how you can talk about Bush eroding your civil rights out of one cheek while you are rationalizing squelching freedom of speech out the other.

Truly comical.</end quote></div>

Have you been reading the posts?
Again, no one's speech is going to be censored or squelched, the doctrine stop the public airwaves from being monopolized.

Jesus Malone and the Yo Yo Bros will still be able to say YXZ, etc, but they won't have the right to dominate.

QT
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
We need each station to present opposing views, not just the market overall.</end quote></div>

Why?

The sad part is I can gurantee 90% of the people in favor of this law right now would be against it if talk radio's demographic were different. In other words they acknowledge the intent and support it because their guys will win.

Because of the brainwashing that's going on AM radio.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
We need each station to present opposing views, not just the market overall.</end quote></div>

Why?

The sad part is I can gurantee 90% of the people in favor of this law right now would be against it if talk radio's demographic were different. In other words they acknowledge the intent and support it because their guys will win.

You would be wrong. Libs believe in fairness. We want to hear all sides. We want to make informed decisions. It is cons who only want one side. They want to be told how to think.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
We need each station to present opposing views, not just the market overall.</end quote></div>

Why?

The sad part is I can gurantee 90% of the people in favor of this law right now would be against it if talk radio's demographic were different. In other words they acknowledge the intent and support it because their guys will win.

</end quote></div>

Because of the brainwashing that's going on AM radio.

Hahaha you will save all of us from ourselves! You have to be kidding me, that is one pathetic response.

You would be wrong. Libs believe in fairness. We want to hear all sides. We want to make informed decisions. It is cons who only want one side. They want to be told how to think.

Yeah? Apply it to the network news channels and newspapers then.

 

QTArrhythmic

Senior member
Sep 14, 2002
229
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87


Yeah? Apply it to the network news channels and newspapers then.

Network news is private and not regulated in same way as radio. And unlike public airwaves, newspapers are not limited by a certain number of public frequencies. In other words, its a lot harder for a newpaper to have a monopoly on information that way radio can.

 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87


Yeah? Apply it to the network news channels and newspapers then.

</end quote></div>

Network news is private and not regulated in same way as radio. And unlike public airwaves, newspapers are not limited by a certain number of public frequencies. In other words, its a lot harder for a newpaper to have a monopoly on information that way radio can.
ABC, CBS and NBC are broadcast channels - why wouldn't it apply to them?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87


Yeah? Apply it to the network news channels and newspapers then.

</end quote></div>

Network news is private and not regulated in same way as radio. And unlike public airwaves, newspapers are not limited by a certain number of public frequencies. In other words, its a lot harder for a newpaper to have a monopoly on information that way radio can.

How convenient lol. And yes Newspapers can have a strangle hold on information the same way radio can. Checkout who owns the two papers in the Minneapolis area. I do believe one was recently sold to a PE group. But for a awhile they were both owned by the same company.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Out of the mainstream media needs to be held to the same standard they hold the mainstream media to.
 

QTArrhythmic

Senior member
Sep 14, 2002
229
0
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage


</end quote></div>
ABC, CBS and NBC are broadcast channels - why wouldn't it apply to them?

If they are on the radio, I guess it would apply to them. I was referring to TV which is regulated differently.

QT

 

QTArrhythmic

Senior member
Sep 14, 2002
229
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87


How convenient lol. And yes Newspapers can have a strangle hold on information the same way radio can. Checkout who owns the two papers in the Minneapolis area. I do believe one was recently sold to a PE group. But for a awhile they were both owned by the same company.

Well yes to some extent newpapers can, but again they are not limited by a finite number of frequencies to spread there information. In other words, its much harder, perhaps impossible, for a newspaper to have a complete monopoly on the information.

QT

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87


How convenient lol. And yes Newspapers can have a strangle hold on information the same way radio can. Checkout who owns the two papers in the Minneapolis area. I do believe one was recently sold to a PE group. But for a awhile they were both owned by the same company.</end quote></div>

Well yes to some extent newpapers can, but again they are not limited by a finite number of frequencies to spread there information. In other words, its much harder, perhaps impossible, for a newspaper to have a complete monopoly on the information.

QT

I wouldnt say it is any harder than AM radio. AM radio is one channel among hundreds. The only thing I can see is if a radio station purchases up the available channels and sits on them. Then I agree, the FCC should be forcing the company to use or lose. But if there are channels that are open and nobody is using them, then forcing the current stations to broadcast a certain way is nothing but trying to silence the opposition.

That should worry just about anybody right or left if the govt thinks it can do such a thing.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage


</end quote></div>
ABC, CBS and NBC are broadcast channels - why wouldn't it apply to them?</end quote></div>

If they are on the radio, I guess it would apply to them. I was referring to TV which is regulated differently.

QT
Why would TV be exempt from the fairness doctrine, they use the feq. in the spectrum like radio and have to be licensed by the FCC?
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Deudalus said:
It is a free market and there is plenty of space for liberals to have their own talk radio.

It isn't Rush or Hannity's fault that no one listens to Air America. You people really scare me sometimes, you really do. I love how you can talk about Bush eroding your civil rights out of one cheek while you are rationalizing squelching freedom of speech out the other.

Truly comical.

Well, on the flip side. the freedom of speech meme aside. These are equaly "comical":

When "some" conservitives bitch about how the media has a "liberal" bias, and then scream and shout about the fairness doctrine. If the media truely had a "liberal" bias, then bringing back the fairness doctrine would give conservitives a voice that they didn't have before. What are they afraid of?. Maybe they are afraid of alternate viewpoints being heard?. Isn't that a form of censorship.

If somehow "liberal radio or television" were to transform their values and thought processes to mirror right-wing conservative media, and spew the hatred, fabrications and general vitriol so frequently heard from people such as Malkin, Savage, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, there would be blood curdling screams in the streets from the right.

As for "the free market". When these huge media companies buy up large numbers of stations, not only are most decisions made by people who may not share your viewpoint. They also rarely live in your community and are clueless (& disinterested) as to it's needs.

Increasingly, they ditch all but a handful of local employees and pipe in programming from far away. Technology can make it seem very live and local, but it's not. This kind of automation and detachment from the community has resulted in some major eff ups when severe weather/emergency situations have struck rural areas or remote locations.

In essence, media consolidation has hurt the free market. They are pipeing the same recycled drivil to parts of the country that really aren't interested.

The airwaves belong to the public and are held in trust by the government as part of the commons. Broadcasters own the equipment, but the right to use spectrum (or rights of way for cable/telco) is a privilege and they should be required to serve the public interest in a balanced manner.

That's not "liberal" or radical - it's the right thing to do.

Having said that, I don't see how any form of the Fairness Doctrine would really succeed in doing anything. Even if every story had an opposing view, we'd really only get half of each side's viewpoint; and most of the time these views are not even factual.

What we do have is a situation where editors pick and choose to relate stories that either make their politics of choice look good, or just not bad. Even with fairness doctrine, just because a story was run that skews pro-democratic doesn't mean we'd get a story that skews pro-republican, it just means we'd (likely) get a story that half-assedly attempts to provide a "two-sided" viewpoint and no one would learn anything.

What the media really needs is a "truth & integrity doctrine".



 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |