Fairness Doctrine

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


So you believe that the fact that there are at least 3 (if not 4, 5, 6 or more.. I don't know) hugely popular conservative radio show hosts has to do with the "Liberal Media"? How do you explain the virtual nonexistence of liberal counterparts to these people? Even in the TV/print media there are virtually zero of these personalities out there that are liberal. I can think of one... Keith Olbermann. Arrayed against him there is Bill-O, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage (briefly.. har har), Shepard Smith, Joe Scarborough, etc.. etc. Considering the country is pretty split 50-50 (and if that were to ever change our perceptions of what is liberal and conservative would change to make it 50-50 again), and so you would think that at least a few would be out there.

I explained very carefully why I think that conservatives don't want to think for themselves... and I mentioned that I was painting with a very broad brush. (of course I don't see how you paint narrowly when discussing entire political movements) I really don't even think it has to be a bad thing, authoritarianism has its place.

Well, from the people that I have known throughout my life, most people that have been interested in politics were conservative, and those that didn't really care were liberal. When we'd discuss politics the liberals were liberal because they really didn't think about issues, they just kind of went with whatever they saw on TV and never really thought about it. So using my personal experience I would say that its the liberals that don't want to think for themselves their content with just going along with the crowd and not questioning anything. Now of course thats just my own experience, so take it for what its worth. I live in a very Democratic state btw.

Edit - To answer your question directly, I think liberals just don't care about the actual issues and are happy watching MTV and playing their Xbox.

Edit2 - WTH is wrong with the quoting function?

Edit3 - Thanks Sinsear

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: JD50


Edit2 - WTH is wrong with the quoting function?

When you edit, apparently you have to go back in and change the special symbols. Just had to do it to mine for an edit.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

How many of those names come from Fox News? Last time I checked Fox news was a cable network, meaning pay TV. I know it doesn't come free in my neck of the woods. If the libs were so inclined they could easily make create their own network, and I'm sure Soros would be glad to fund it.

Well, that's not really my point though. (just so you know though, less then half of those I mentioned were from FOX news.) My point was that there isn't a demand for these types of personalities among liberals, and that is why they don't exist... not because the country is somehow being ill served by its TV and print media. The overwhelming presence of conservative demagogues on TV, spread out between many channels, seems to further undercut the argument for the need for conservatives to retreat to radio to get what they are looking for.

JD50, that's interesting. I think that people who are passionate about politics tend to hang around those who share their views. Of all the people I know who are interested in politics I know exactly one registered Republican. I'm originally from Pennsylvania which is of course a swing state, and now I live in San Diego which is a pretty right wing city. (everyone who thinks California is so liberal hasn't seen this town's politics. We elected Duke Cunningham's successor whom he annointed on his way to jail).

Considering the primary vehicle of political socialization is the leanings of your parents I'm not that surprised to learn that most leftist people you met in a state that was overwhelmingly Democratic would be so reflexively instead of based on issues and personal knowledge. I would make a very safe bet that the same case exists in heavily right wing areas as well however. I think that levels of political knowledge has very little to do with partisan leanings, as we all see politics through the prism of our prejudice. (although education does seem to correlate with a leftist effect)

 

[Arkaign]

Radio is 20th century garbage that is becoming culturally and politically irrelevant. I don't know a single person under 40 who listens to talk radio. It moves too slow, there are too many long ads, it's not multi-threaded enough.

For the market that is there (mostly middle-aged / old white people) who still listen to that crap, why not let the market decide? Face it, people primarily listen/watch/read what reinforces what they already believe or want to believe. Tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll turn the dial (or read a book, watch a tv show, etc).

To be fair, there are VERY few on the left OR the right that actually open their minds to alternative viewpoints. You see it on here all the time. They believe what they want to believe, and everyone that doesn't agree with them is automatically wrong. We're all guilty of it to some degree or another, after all we're only human. Personally I am very biased about many issues, but I almost always try to give a nod to the opposing view in terms of logical thought and reason. There are almost always valid standpoints to both sides of an argument.

That all said, AM Radio (or any radio format) is CRAP for an effective platform for an exchange of ideas and opinions. It's too slow, it's too one-sided, it just doesn't cut it.

Internet/24hr news FTW. It also helps to have forums like this very one, where each can pretty much have his entire say if he chooses. And reply/link/etc. Of course this will never change the fact that 90% of the people on here are entrenched partisans, but what can you do?

Fairness Doctrine = crap
AM Radio = Irrelevant

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

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

I wouldnt say it is any harder than AM radio. AM radio is one channel among hundreds.

You would be mistaken, especially with respect to AM radio specifically. Spectrum for broadcast AM is quite scare. Though there may not be many stations in your locale, you have to remember that the range of AM radio is hundreds, even thousands of miles. You also have to understand the propagation of AM radio varies tremendously according to atmospheric conditions. Although there may not be anybody on 940 KHz in your town, for example, you can bet there are stations there within a few hundred miles, and you will be able to receive them sometimes at night or when skip is high. The FCC has to manage AM spectrum to minimize interference, meaning there are real limits to how many stations can be crammed into a given location.

AM is now pretty full. For decades the FCC supported "clear channel" AM stations, stations whose frequency was reserved solely for that station throughout the entire United States. One could literally listen to such stations "coast to coast, border to border" on many evenings. That was ended a few years ago due to lack of available spectrum.

This is not such a big issue with FM radio and television. As the frequency goes up, the range drops. AM sits near the bottom of the radio spectrum.

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.

I'm not aware of any companies squatting on AM spectrum, though I'm sure it's possible. I doubt it is a significant problem; it's too valuable to waste.

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.

But it simply is not a case of trying to silence the opposition. That's a bogus argument on multiple fronts. It is a case of the government acting in the interests of the public at large rather than the financial interests of a privileged few (oh, the horror!). That's what government is supposed to do. The broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource. It is not at all unreasonable to demand that businesses serve the public interest if they are going to use our airwaves for their profit.

By the way, I think the Fairness Doctrine should apply to ALL broadcast including television. The same rationale applies to both radio and TV.

 

[Deudalus]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
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 </end quote></div>

Really?

I suppose you have no problem with this being applied to all consumer goods correct? Lets split down the demographic and decide who gets to shop where. Lets start telling musicians what type of music they are allowed to produce. Also, the ratio of liberals to conservatives on this board is way out of wack. I'm afraid that from now on QT, Harvey, and Dave will have to start agreeing with Republicans to balance things out a bit.

We also need to make sure there is an equal amount of books written for and against global warming, abortion, the war in iraq, and everything else. If you write one piece saying bad things about Iraq, we need one doing totally the opposite. Every article written in every newspaper dealing with anything political must have a counter article touting exactly the opposite in detail.

Does all this sound fair to you?


Also for the record this isn't like Wal-Mart pushing all the liberals off the air. The money comes from the ads, the ads come from the viewership. If the liberals can't get rating they will go out of business.

Rush and Hannity won't decide whether Air America and their ilk make it or not. It will be their listeners and their ratings that determine that.

There is no iron fisted monopoly keeping liberals off the air, they just dont have any listeners.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>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.</end quote></div>

Then read any of the liberal blogs out there. Support a liberal talk radio guy. Do any of a number of things to get your information out into the public. But don't be a cry baby soreloser that says "we can't compete so we are going to legislate you out of business in Stalinist type manner."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

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

Really?

I suppose you have no problem with this being applied to all consumer goods correct? Lets split down the demographic and decide who gets to shop where. Lets start telling musicians what type of music they are allowed to produce. Also, the ratio of liberals to conservatives on this board is way out of wack. I'm afraid that from now on QT, Harvey, and Dave will have to start agreeing with Republicans to balance things out a bit.

We also need to make sure there is an equal amount of books written for and against global warming, abortion, the war in iraq, and everything else. If you write one piece saying bad things about Iraq, we need one doing totally the opposite. Every article written in every newspaper dealing with anything political must have a counter article touting exactly the opposite in detail.

Does all this sound fair to you? ...

No, it sounds irrelevant. Repeat after me:

Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves

Sinking in yet? That's why broadcast is different from private stores, newspapers, cable, the Internet, etc. Public airwaves. If a private business is going to profit from a scarce public resource, it is entirely reasonable to insist it do so in a manner that serves the public interest. Public airwaves.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Success of conservative talk radio has nothing to do with sheeple waiting for marching orders like you Libs want to think.

It's all about a large portion of the voting public getting sick and tired of left-wing print and TV. Ever notice how ratings for ABC, CBS, NBC, Time Magazine, Newsweek, USA Today, etc. are all at historical lows? People want to hear voices larger and bigger than their own that they can agree and identify with, hence the success of conservative talk radio. A lot their listeners are small/large business owners, military personnel, farmers, etc. People who can't think for themselves? What?

Libs are just being typical cry-baby bed-wetters pulling the "fairness" card.

Life isn't fair as we all know.

Either change your tone to fit that of your readers/listeners and sell more or continue to force left-wing BS down their throats and sell less.

Then again, I am also for the third option: charge a special TV tax on every TV sold and have a really good public broadcast system (like the UK's BBC or Germany's ARD/RTL/ZDF) and just freaking report the facts and nothing else. No spin, no commentary. This is what happened. Period. Done. In that sense "We report, you decide" in its purest form is what we should have.</end quote></div>

To paint conservatism with a very broad brush, the answer would generally be... no. Conservatives do not want to think for themselves. Now of course this does not encompass all conservatives by any means as there are a thousand shades of grey in any political affiliation. Now before you go all crazy, let me explain.

As a general attribute American conservatism is extemely authoritarian in nature. This can be seen through a general sense of militarism, support for high levels of law enforcement/punishment for crime, support of increased police powers for fighting terrorism, deification of power figures, etc. Because of this authoritarian streak, conservatives tend to gravitate towards charismatic figures who exert a large amount of influence over the thoughts and opinions of their followers. It's pretty much a natural extention... if you believe in strong authority, you look for someone to dispense that authority. Conservatives in America (mostly) don't take that to that much of an extreme, and authoritarianism isn't by itself always bad as long as it has limits. So, what's wrong with looking for a central figure to dispense it? I say nothing, but lets realize that the success of conservative radio has more to do with the type of people looking for that sort of thing then it does with people trying to "fight the LIEberal media" (that doesn't exist)

It's pretty easy to see when comparing the various types of media that appeal to people of different political stripes. How many people have you heard who will defend Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, tooth and nail on topics, and how many people will you hear give the same level of deference to Al Franken, or... well... pretty much any other liberal figurehead? Hell, I'm just trying to think of a liberal figurehead right now. (John Stewart might be the sole exception, but I don't even really view him as liberal so much as contrarian. Shades of grey.) Liberals don't look for single figureheads for their movements... in fact figureheads tend to set off liberal intellectual snobbery like nothing else. ("pssh, I know better then this guy" style.)

I sincerely doubt this is because Rush and Sean and Co. are just soooo much more correct and so much better then anyone who might have liberal political views, and to be honest I think that political demogaugery just fits conservatism better then it does liberalism. You guys want someone you can point to and say "see!? he's right!". It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different. Sorta like how liberals have all the good political music, and we own the whole sign waving protest thing.

Anyways, from the content of your post it seems likely that you aren't even interested in having a meaningful debate on that topic considering how it was full of things like "bed wetters", but there's always hope right?
</end quote></div>

Sorry, but after seeing countless posts in this thread by liberals saying that conservatives can't think for themselves and just want someone to tell them how to think, you hardly have a leg to stand on when it comes to someone wanting to have a meaningful debate.

Its interesting to compare liberals and conservatives on this topic. Conservatives b1tched about the liberal media for years, because of the monopoly that liberals have over TV and newspapers, so what did conservatives do? We started our own news channel, and let the free market take over. Liberals have been b1tching about conservatives having a monopoly over AM talk radio, so what do liberals do? They try and start their own radio station, and when that fails miserably they go whining to the government, to hell with free speech.

BTW, how many of you liberals have called in to these conservative talk radio shows to try and get your voice heard? I hear liberal callers all the time on the shows that I listen to when I'm commuting.

Yep, I agree, especially because it has to do with promoting drug use. That should not be allowed anywhere near schools.

Yeah like you give a damn about free speech.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Perfectly reasonable Bowfinger...to a liberal with an agenda to stifle conservative free speech in a free marketplace. China needs people like you.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Genx87 said:

One thing I have noticed in this thread is a constant whining about conservatives "buying" up spectrums

Since you responded and quoted comments I made. I have to congragulate you on "projecting" that I am "whining". Way to help ruin the discussion.

Have no fear though, I'm sure you will get a gold star from your comrade's who also like to come in here and frame the discourse of the discussion with over-generalizations and falsehoods.

JD50 said:

He made very good points in his post, his insults toward liberals had nothing to do with him not being interesting in a meaningful debate, it had everything to do with all of the ignorant liberals posting that crap in this thread.

Yes he did make a good point in his post, in particular the last paragraph of it. But, if he was interested in "meaningful" debate, why not leave the vitrol out of the post completely.

Or, if you feel the need to bring the level of discussion down to grade school levels, why not or simply quote the "ignorent liberals" with the quote function and berate them to your hearts content. It seems to be tolorated here. Sad as it may be.

What he did was "project" that every commenter in this thread is a "crybaby bed wetter liberal". How does this add to the discussion?. How does this make him better than the "libs" that he so despises?.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87


The current crop of stations will when they are forced to air 50% of their time to a view nobody listens to. This isnt hard to see if you are forced to do such a thing you will run out of business. Try telling Intel they are have to sell 50% of their product as Pentium IIs and see how their profits look the next quarter.</end quote></div>

Coporations don't have absolute power to have monopolies over everyone. If Intel had monopoly on making processors then I would argue that there WOULD be govt intervention.

With the increasing consolation of media, especially in radio, there exits the potential for the public airwaves to speak one voice. Well you can say that "I don't have to listen to it if I don't like, if it's biased, etc." However, the problem with is 1) its free public airwaves and 2) I think the public is entitled to fair news/talk when it turns on the radio. In emergencies (natural distasters, etc) radio is usually the only way to dispense new and information if the power is out.
Finally, if I want some biased political talk I will turn on Cable news (which I paid for) or XM (which ppl pay for).

QT

Uh then you are looking at the wrong area of the law. The fairness doctrine is not a way to keep a monopoly out of power. Look to the anti-trust laws in our country.

The bottom line is this monopoly line of crap is a weak argument for trying to pass the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine is nothing more than one side of the argument silencing the other through the force of govt.

There is no suprise it is the liberals trying to abuse the power of govt to do this.

 

[Genx87]

But it simply is not a case of trying to silence the opposition. That's a bogus argument on multiple fronts. It is a case of the government acting in the interests of the public at large rather than the financial interests of a privileged few (oh, the horror!). That's what government is supposed to do. The broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource. It is not at all unreasonable to demand that businesses serve the public interest if they are going to use our airwaves for their profit.

By the way, I think the Fairness Doctrine should apply to ALL broadcast including television. The same rationale applies to both radio and TV.

The public interest is to let the public listen to what they want to listen to. Clearly on AM bands the public wants to listen to conservative talk radio. To deny them that is clearly not in the publics interest no matter how much you want to paint this disgusting turd of legislation pretty.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Genx87 said:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>One thing I have noticed in this thread is a constant whining about conservatives "buying" up spectrums</end quote></div>

Since you responded and quoted comments I made. I have to congragulate you on "projecting" that I am "whining". Way to help ruin the discussion.

Have no fear though, I'm sure you will get a gold star from your comrade's who also like to come in here and frame the discourse of the discussion with over-generalizations and falsehoods.

JD50 said:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>He made very good points in his post, his insults toward liberals had nothing to do with him not being interesting in a meaningful debate, it had everything to do with all of the ignorant liberals posting that crap in this thread.</end quote></div>

Yes he did make a good point in his post, in particular the last paragraph of it. But, if he was interested in "meaningful" debate, why not leave the vitrol out of the post completely.

Or, if you feel the need to bring the level of discussion down to grade school levels, why not or simply quote the "ignorent liberals" with the quote function and berate them to your hearts content. It seems to be tolorated here. Sad as it may be.

What he did was "project" that every commenter in this thread is a "crybaby bed wetter liberal". How does this add to the discussion?. How does this make him better than the "libs" that he so despises?.

WTF? How does multiple people claiming that "conservatives don't think for themselves" add to the discussion? Why are you ignoring all of their ignorant comments in the first 3 and half pages of this thread but jump all over him for insulting liberals?

 

[theeedude]

Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: smack Down
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Success of conservative talk radio has nothing to do with sheeple waiting for marching orders like you Libs want to think.

It's all about a large portion of the voting public getting sick and tired of left-wing print and TV. Ever notice how ratings for ABC, CBS, NBC, Time Magazine, Newsweek, USA Today, etc. are all at historical lows? People want to hear voices larger and bigger than their own that they can agree and identify with, hence the success of conservative talk radio. A lot their listeners are small/large business owners, military personnel, farmers, etc. People who can't think for themselves? What?

Libs are just being typical cry-baby bed-wetters pulling the "fairness" card.

Life isn't fair as we all know.

Either change your tone to fit that of your readers/listeners and sell more or continue to force left-wing BS down their throats and sell less.

Then again, I am also for the third option: charge a special TV tax on every TV sold and have a really good public broadcast system (like the UK's BBC or Germany's ARD/RTL/ZDF) and just freaking report the facts and nothing else. No spin, no commentary. This is what happened. Period. Done. In that sense "We report, you decide" in its purest form is what we should have.</end quote></div>

To paint conservatism with a very broad brush, the answer would generally be... no. Conservatives do not want to think for themselves. Now of course this does not encompass all conservatives by any means as there are a thousand shades of grey in any political affiliation. Now before you go all crazy, let me explain.

As a general attribute American conservatism is extemely authoritarian in nature. This can be seen through a general sense of militarism, support for high levels of law enforcement/punishment for crime, support of increased police powers for fighting terrorism, deification of power figures, etc. Because of this authoritarian streak, conservatives tend to gravitate towards charismatic figures who exert a large amount of influence over the thoughts and opinions of their followers. It's pretty much a natural extention... if you believe in strong authority, you look for someone to dispense that authority. Conservatives in America (mostly) don't take that to that much of an extreme, and authoritarianism isn't by itself always bad as long as it has limits. So, what's wrong with looking for a central figure to dispense it? I say nothing, but lets realize that the success of conservative radio has more to do with the type of people looking for that sort of thing then it does with people trying to "fight the LIEberal media" (that doesn't exist)

It's pretty easy to see when comparing the various types of media that appeal to people of different political stripes. How many people have you heard who will defend Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, tooth and nail on topics, and how many people will you hear give the same level of deference to Al Franken, or... well... pretty much any other liberal figurehead? Hell, I'm just trying to think of a liberal figurehead right now. (John Stewart might be the sole exception, but I don't even really view him as liberal so much as contrarian. Shades of grey.) Liberals don't look for single figureheads for their movements... in fact figureheads tend to set off liberal intellectual snobbery like nothing else. ("pssh, I know better then this guy" style.)

I sincerely doubt this is because Rush and Sean and Co. are just soooo much more correct and so much better then anyone who might have liberal political views, and to be honest I think that political demogaugery just fits conservatism better then it does liberalism. You guys want someone you can point to and say "see!? he's right!". It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different. Sorta like how liberals have all the good political music, and we own the whole sign waving protest thing.

Anyways, from the content of your post it seems likely that you aren't even interested in having a meaningful debate on that topic considering how it was full of things like "bed wetters", but there's always hope right?
</end quote></div>

Sorry, but after seeing countless posts in this thread by liberals saying that conservatives can't think for themselves and just want someone to tell them how to think, you hardly have a leg to stand on when it comes to someone wanting to have a meaningful debate.

Its interesting to compare liberals and conservatives on this topic. Conservatives b1tched about the liberal media for years, because of the monopoly that liberals have over TV and newspapers, so what did conservatives do? We started our own news channel, and let the free market take over. Liberals have been b1tching about conservatives having a monopoly over AM talk radio, so what do liberals do? They try and start their own radio station, and when that fails miserably they go whining to the government, to hell with free speech.

BTW, how many of you liberals have called in to these conservative talk radio shows to try and get your voice heard? I hear liberal callers all the time on the shows that I listen to when I'm commuting.

</end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

Yep, I agree, especially because it has to do with promoting drug use. That should not be allowed anywhere near schools. </end quote></div>

Yeah like you give a damn about free speech.

I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between promoting drug use in schools and free speech. But I guess you'd be fine if some crackhead came up to your kid and started telling him how great drugs are and that he should give it a shot, I mean you're all for free speech right?:roll:

 

[Deudalus]

No, it sounds irrelevant. Repeat after me:

Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves

Sinking in yet? That's why broadcast is different from private stores, newspapers, cable, the Internet, etc. Public airwaves. If a private business is going to profit from a scarce public resource, it is entirely reasonable to insist it do so in a manner that serves the public interest. Public airwaves.

Umm, no it isnt public airways I'm afraid. They don't own the radio stations. They cannot contact a radio station and tell them what to play and what not to play. The government doesn't control the format of the radio station which is what YOU LIBS are asking for. Be careful when you ask for Stalin, you just might get him.

They can do that with PBS and NPR because those are paid for by the government and they exist because of government funding but the government even leaves them alone 99% of the time.

The only say so the government has over AM and FM radio is obscenity formatting and whatnot (which is why Howard Stern went to Sirius).

Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.

Clever, but not really.

I understand that people have their biases. I understand that most journalists are liberals (before you disagree every independent study shows this and its really OK). I do not have a problem with anyone being liberal. I do not have a problem with the editorial pages being as liberal as they wanna be. I do have a problem with trying to spin non-editorial stories in order to convert people to your political viewpoints. I have a problem with editorializing news that is being purported to be fact based.

Rush, Hannity, Franken, and others never claim to be objective. They don't claim to be unbiased. If you truly think any of them are unbiased then you are simply retarded.

If you can't see the difference between NEWS ANALYSTS being biased and COMMON REPORTERS REPORTING BASIC NEWS being biased then you have some serious issues.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

JD50 said:

WTF? How does multiple people claiming that "conservatives don't think for themselves" add to the discussion? Why are you ignoring all of their ignorant comments in the first 3 and half pages of this thread but jump all over him for insulting liberals?

Yes, I agree with you..multiple people claiming that "conservatives don't think for themselves" is definity an ignorent comment. Complete falsehood and easly dismissed in rational discusson.

You know whats even more ignorent?. Multiple people claiming that "crybaby bed wetter conservatives don't think for themselves". Complete falsehood with a splash of gasoline and "not" easily dismissed in rational dicussion.

Think about it...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>No, it sounds irrelevant. Repeat after me:

Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves

Sinking in yet? That's why broadcast is different from private stores, newspapers, cable, the Internet, etc. Public airwaves. If a private business is going to profit from a scarce public resource, it is entirely reasonable to insist it do so in a manner that serves the public interest. Public airwaves.
</end quote></div>

Umm, no it isnt public airways I'm afraid. They don't own the radio stations. They cannot contact a radio station and tell them what to play and what not to play. The government doesn't control the format of the radio station which is what YOU LIBS are asking for. Be careful when you ask for Stalin, you just might get him.

They can do that with PBS and NPR because those are paid for by the government and they exist because of government funding but the government even leaves them alone 99% of the time.

The only say so the government has over AM and FM radio is obscenity formatting and whatnot (which is why Howard Stern went to Sirius).

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.</end quote></div>

Clever, but not really.

I understand that people have their biases. I understand that most journalists are liberals (before you disagree every independent study shows this and its really OK). I do not have a problem with anyone being liberal. I do not have a problem with the editorial pages being as liberal as they wanna be. I do have a problem with trying to spin non-editorial stories in order to convert people to your political viewpoints. I have a problem with editorializing news that is being purported to be fact based.

Rush, Hannity, Franken, and others never claim to be objective. They don't claim to be unbiased. If you truly think any of them are unbiased then you are simply retarded.

If you can't see the difference between NEWS ANALYSTS being biased and COMMON REPORTERS REPORTING BASIC NEWS being biased then you have some serious issues.

That's the same excuse conservatives have been using to bash the competition.
You don't see them criticizing Fox News for their conservative bias, even though, unlike other news organizations, Fox News actually claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact is they are trying to suppress opposing speech by calling it biased, while they themselves spew outright brainwashing. It's about time they are held to the same standard they hold the mainstream news.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
JD50 said:<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>WTF? How does multiple people claiming that "conservatives don't think for themselves" add to the discussion? Why are you ignoring all of their ignorant comments in the first 3 and half pages of this thread but jump all over him for insulting liberals?</end quote></div>

Yes, I agree with you..multiple people claiming that "conservatives don't think for themselves" is definity an ignorent comment. Complete falsehood and easly dismissed in rational discusson.

You know whats even more ignorent?. Multiple people claiming that "crybaby bed wetter conservatives don't think for themselves". Complete falsehood with a splash of gasoline and "not" easily dismissed in rational dicussion.

Think about it...

Ah ok, I get it. Everything is ok as long as its just a bunch of intellectual liberals bashing those stupid conservatives, but once a conservative fires back then its "even more ignorent" and a "complete falsehod with a splash of gasoline". Thanks for clearing that up.

BTW, I'm not sure if you were referring to what I said about liberals not thinking for themselves, but if you were, it was out of context. Obviously I don't think that liberals "don't think for themselves", that was in response to other people using their own personal experiences with the people that they know that are on the other side of the aisle.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you and you are holding conservatives to a higher standard than you do the liberals here, expecting us to stay rational and polite while multiple people insult us. *shrug*

 

[Deudalus]

Umm, please tell me you aren't arguing your point of view because some conservatives are nuts and think something?

I mean consider what you are saying here:

A) Some Conservatives are nuts and think XYZ

thus

B) We should totally trash the constitution and free market system just to show those people who's boss!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Perfectly reasonable Bowfinger...to a liberal with an agenda to stifle conservative free speech in a free marketplace. China needs people like you.

In other words, you haven't a brain in your head with which you can challenge anything I said, so you're just going to turn to asinine personal attacks. Dismissed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

But it simply is not a case of trying to silence the opposition. That's a bogus argument on multiple fronts. It is a case of the government acting in the interests of the public at large rather than the financial interests of a privileged few (oh, the horror!). That's what government is supposed to do. The broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource. It is not at all unreasonable to demand that businesses serve the public interest if they are going to use our airwaves for their profit.

By the way, I think the Fairness Doctrine should apply to ALL broadcast including television. The same rationale applies to both radio and TV.

The public interest is to let the public listen to what they want to listen to. Clearly on AM bands the public wants to listen to conservative talk radio. To deny them that is clearly not in the publics interest no matter how much you want to paint this disgusting turd of legislation pretty.

I see a glaring flaw in that logic. If people want to watch porn on broadcast television, do you then concede it's in the public interest to allow it, or do you recognize that that which sells isn't always in the overall best interest? I contend that a one-sided torrent of often blatant disinformation does not serve America's overall need for a well-informed public. While such points of view should be given their pulpit, it is important that they be balanced by opposing points of view. Otherwise, when lies are left unrefuted, people begin to assume they're true. At least with balanced coverage, people learn there are opposing points of view.

The fact remains that the broadcast airwaves are a scarce public resource, and they should be used to benefit the public as a whole. For those who insist on 7x24 Rush, there are plenty of other media where they can sate their cravings.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

No, it sounds irrelevant. Repeat after me:

Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves
Public airwaves

Sinking in yet? That's why broadcast is different from private stores, newspapers, cable, the Internet, etc. Public airwaves. If a private business is going to profit from a scarce public resource, it is entirely reasonable to insist it do so in a manner that serves the public interest. Public airwaves.

Umm, no it isnt public airways I'm afraid. They don't own the radio stations. They cannot contact a radio station and tell them what to play and what not to play. The government doesn't control the format of the radio station which is what YOU LIBS are asking for. Be careful when you ask for Stalin, you just might get him.

They can do that with PBS and NPR because those are paid for by the government and they exist because of government funding but the government even leaves them alone 99% of the time.

The only say so the government has over AM and FM radio is obscenity formatting and whatnot (which is why Howard Stern went to Sirius). ...

No, you are absolutely, inarguably incorrect. They are, IN FACT, public airwaves. Look it up. Broadcasters receive a license to use our airwaves in return for agreeing to follow FCC regulations. For many years, long before AM radio became the haven for hate-mongers and truthy infotainment, that included abiding by the Fairness Doctrine.

As far as your Stalin slur is conserved, I'd advise you to be careful about pointing with a dirty finger. The Bush administration is far more Stalinesque than "the libs".

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.

They may bitch and whine but they aren't enacting legislation to force a viewpoint to be heard.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: senseamp

That's the same excuse conservatives have been using to bash the competition.
You don't see them criticizing Fox News for their conservative bias, even though, unlike other news organizations, Fox News actually claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact is they are trying to suppress opposing speech by calling it biased, while they themselves spew outright brainwashing. It's about time they are held to the same standard they hold the mainstream news.

Fox News is pay TV. They can pretty much claim anything they want as their viewers pay to watch it.