Fairness Doctrine

[ProfJohn]

Bowfinger, please define these ?rules? for how the air waves should be used.

You claim that you are against censorship but you refuse to acknowledge that only way to implement a rule like this will be to remove some of the people who are already on the air wave off the air waves.

If your Radio station has Gleen Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage how are you going to fit a ?liberal? point of view without removing one of those guys?

Furthermore Rush and Hannity are on from 12-6PM essentially the prime time for talk radio (not counting the AM commute which is almost always a local host.) So if WJON tries to comply with the new ?fairness? by giving 6 hours of talk time to liberals during the hours of 6-12 is that going to make everyone happy? Of course not, next they will start calling for ?equal access to prime listening hours.? Where does it stop?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Hmm, let me check. Nope, not at all. I haven't listened to AM in years.

I think the reason you guys can't get your head around my position is because you simply cannot imagine someone taking a position based soley on principle. A Fairness Doctrine won't affect me personally. I simply believe in the principle of ensuring the public airwaves serve the public interest. I would hold the same position if it was liberal talk radio that ruled, or even if it was dominated by an ideology that matches my own eclectic mix of positions. I even thought it was the right idea 30 years ago, when political talk radio was an inconsequential oddity. Fair and balanced is simply the right position to take, and I'm astounded that so many are so nakedly partisan they reject this.

If you are so principled on this issue, then shouldn't you be fighting for this in all areas of the media?

One of the first things I said in this thread is that the Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast media, including television.

Every other form of media is dominated by liberals,

False, cry me a river. I also already mentioned that the usual conservative "we're so victimized" BS has gotten really old. It's time for a new schtick. Rupert Murdoch is such a flaming liberal ... not.

that doesn't give conservatves very many options, that doesn't serve the public interest and it doesn't give us a very balanced view on things. It doesn't matter whether its the public airwaves, print, or cable, you are interested in serving the public interests right? And yes, conservatives are free to start their own newspapers and cable channels, but so are liberals when it comes to radio. Now if you can show me where liberals are getting shut out of AM talk radio for any reason other than the fact that they have crap ratings and the station would lose money due to loss of advertisements, you might have a point.

Public airwaves vs. private media. It makes all the difference in the world. (I think I've probably mentioned that once or twice as well.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50
1. Why is it that the ONLY form of media targeted is the ONLY form of media where conservatives are the minority, don't you find that a bit odd?

2. How can you be in favor of enacting legislation when you have no idea what it actually means? You still have not answered the question as to how this will be enforced, who will decide what is allowed on the air and how they will decide that.

3. Since only conservatives listen to talk radio because we need to be told how and what to think, why does the left want to force conservatives off the air to make room for liberals, if they have no interest in being told how or what to think?

4. Can anyone point to some proof that shows that liberals are being deliberately denied the use of public airwaves? Especially after liberals got their own station, but it failed miserably. Could it be that people just don't want to listen to liberals on the radio?

5. Stop effing telling me what I should or shouldn't listen to on the radio. Go watch your liberal news, liberal movies, read your liberal newspapers, and leave me the hell alone while I try and listen to conservative talk radio on my way to work.

You keep slamming anyone that listens to conservative talk radio with your idiotic insults which doesn't help your argument one bit.

?

If you're addressing this to me, I suggest you go back and find examples of me doing (or not doing) the things you're accusing "you" of doing. From my standpoint, your list looks like a nice collection of red herrings and straw men, all of which have already been deconstructed.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Hmm, let me check. Nope, not at all. I haven't listened to AM in years.

I think the reason you guys can't get your head around my position is because you simply cannot imagine someone taking a position based soley on principle. A Fairness Doctrine won't affect me personally. I simply believe in the principle of ensuring the public airwaves serve the public interest. I would hold the same position if it was liberal talk radio that ruled, or even if it was dominated by an ideology that matches my own eclectic mix of positions. I even thought it was the right idea 30 years ago, when political talk radio was an inconsequential oddity. Fair and balanced is simply the right position to take, and I'm astounded that so many are so nakedly partisan they reject this.</end quote></div>
If you are so principled on this issue, then shouldn't you be fighting for this in all areas of the media?</end quote></div>
One of the first things I said in this thread is that the Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast media, including television.

Great, and cable, and newspapers, and movies, etc. Let make everything "fair".


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Every other form of media is dominated by liberals,</end quote></div>
False, cry me a river. I also already mentioned that the usual conservative "we're so victimized" BS has gotten really old. It's time for a new schtick. Rupert Murdoch is such a flaming liberal ... not.

Wow, great answer, thanks. Maybe that should be conservatives response to you trying to run us off the radio. The only people here crying about anything are the liberals crying about conservative radio

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>that doesn't give conservatves very many options, that doesn't serve the public interest and it doesn't give us a very balanced view on things. It doesn't matter whether its the public airwaves, print, or cable, you are interested in serving the public interests right? And yes, conservatives are free to start their own newspapers and cable channels, but so are liberals when it comes to radio. Now if you can show me where liberals are getting shut out of AM talk radio for any reason other than the fact that they have crap ratings and the station would lose money due to loss of advertisements, you might have a point.</end quote></div>
Public airwaves vs. private media. It makes all the difference in the world. (I think I've probably mentioned that once or twice as well.)

Ummm....no, if you are genuinely concerned about the public interest, and people not being subjected to an overwhelmingly conservative or liberal agenda, you would be concerned about all forms of media.

You are still dodging the question of how this all would work.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL! With that you've leaped squarely into the camp of the willfully stupid. What part of "inane unsupported accusations" exceeds your intellectual capacity? Why don't you put down the knee-jerk propaganda points and try firing up a few neurons for a productive discussion.

Ok, let?s start our ?productive? discussion by telling me who decides what constitutes ?fairness? on the airwaves.
If I have three hours of Rush who decides what an acceptable ?balance? is?
Will there be an official government list of radio hosts and what their political views are?
Will we have to ?grade? hosts based on their political views?
One of the local stations has 6 hours of national hosts and 6 hours of local hosts between 6am and 6pm. Both national hosts are conservatives. Can they just claim that their local hosts are liberals and call themselves balanced? If the answer is ?no? then who gets to decide that they are not liberal?
I mean how can I provide balance and serve the public interest without knowing who to put on the air.
Otherwise I can just leave my line-up the way it is and claim that it is already balanced.

Do you have any idea the can of worms you are opening with a rule like this?
What if a radio station refused to comply with the rule? Wouldn?t the government then have to take them to court and prove that they are not providing a balanced line up?

Finally? pornography vs. political speech. There is a HUGE difference between boobies on TV and deciding whether a host is too liberal or conservative.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
I gues you need it spelled out more clearly, or you can stop being a condescending ass and explain what you mean. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSCENITIES AND POLITICAL SPEECH.

I've explained it multiple times. I'm not going to continue wasting Anand's bandwidth by hashing through it again, especially since I have no confidence you have any interest whatsoever in actually understanding and addressing my point.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
1. Why is it that the ONLY form of media targeted is the ONLY form of media where conservatives are the minority, don't you find that a bit odd?

2. How can you be in favor of enacting legislation when you have no idea what it actually means? You still have not answered the question as to how this will be enforced, who will decide what is allowed on the air and how they will decide that.

3. Since only conservatives listen to talk radio because we need to be told how and what to think, why does the left want to force conservatives off the air to make room for liberals, if they have no interest in being told how or what to think?

4. Can anyone point to some proof that shows that liberals are being deliberately denied the use of public airwaves? Especially after liberals got their own station, but it failed miserably. Could it be that people just don't want to listen to liberals on the radio?

5. Stop effing telling me what I should or shouldn't listen to on the radio. Go watch your liberal news, liberal movies, read your liberal newspapers, and leave me the hell alone while I try and listen to conservative talk radio on my way to work.

You keep slamming anyone that listens to conservative talk radio with your idiotic insults which doesn't help your argument one bit.</end quote></div>


?
</end quote></div>
If you're addressing this to me, I suggest you go back and find examples of me doing (or not doing) the things you're accusing "you" of doing. From my standpoint, your list looks like a nice collection of red herrings and straw men, all of which have already been deconstructed.

Yes, I have noticed that just about anything that you disagree with and/or can't answer you call a red herring or a strawman.

You assertion that this is just about public airwaves is just a red herring, so cry me a river.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Public airwaves vs. private media. It makes all the difference in the world. (I think I've probably mentioned that once or twice as well.)

Therefore these rules will have to apply to the big three networks as well?

Look at any thread about media bias and you will see that the right views the big three, especially CBS, as being biased. Therefore the big three will now have to provide ?equal access? to conservative news anchors right?
And you will be right there supporting this move correct?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bowfinger, please define these ?rules? for how the air waves should be used.

You claim that you are against censorship but you refuse to acknowledge that only way to implement a rule like this will be to remove some of the people who are already on the air wave off the air waves.

If your Radio station has Gleen Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage how are you going to fit a ?liberal? point of view without removing one of those guys?

Furthermore Rush and Hannity are on from 12-6PM essentially the prime time for talk radio (not counting the AM commute which is almost always a local host.) So if WJON tries to comply with the new ?fairness? by giving 6 hours of talk time to liberals during the hours of 6-12 is that going to make everyone happy? Of course not, next they will start calling for ?equal access to prime listening hours.? Where does it stop?

As I said before, those are good questions. In order to have a productive discussion on how to define and measure "fair and balanced", we need to agree that there is a legitimate interest in ensuring the use of our public airwaves is fair and balanced. Until we have that common base, we will never be working together to define a workable set of regulations. Anything one side tries to define unilaterally will be automatically rejected by the other.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Public airwaves vs. private media. It makes all the difference in the world. (I think I've probably mentioned that once or twice as well.)</end quote></div>
Therefore these rules will have to apply to the big three networks as well?

Look at any thread about media bias and you will see that the right views the big three, especially CBS, as being biased. Therefore the big three will now have to provide ?equal access? to conservative news anchors right?
And you will be right there supporting this move correct?

Yes, yes, and yes. It's about principle, not partisanship. The public airwaves are a limited resource that should be used for the overall public good. The public interest is not served by a one-sided presentation of important issues. (I've already said this several times as well.)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bowfinger, please define these ?rules? for how the air waves should be used.

You claim that you are against censorship but you refuse to acknowledge that only way to implement a rule like this will be to remove some of the people who are already on the air wave off the air waves.

If your Radio station has Gleen Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage how are you going to fit a ?liberal? point of view without removing one of those guys?

Furthermore Rush and Hannity are on from 12-6PM essentially the prime time for talk radio (not counting the AM commute which is almost always a local host.) So if WJON tries to comply with the new ?fairness? by giving 6 hours of talk time to liberals during the hours of 6-12 is that going to make everyone happy? Of course not, next they will start calling for ?equal access to prime listening hours.? Where does it stop?</end quote></div>
As I said before, those are good questions. In order to have a productive discussion on how to define and measure "fair and balanced", we need to agree that there is a legitimate interest in ensuring the use of our public airwaves is fair and balanced. Until we have that common base, we will never be working together to define a workable set of regulations. Anything one side tries to define unilaterally will be automatically rejected by the other.

So you are telling me we have to adopt the rules and then we can debate how to implement them?

I don?t think there is a need to ensure the airwaves are ?fair and balanced.? There are 10,000 radio stations in this country, I am sure if there was a need for liberal talk radio someone would put them on the air.

If there is a need to provide more points of views on the radio then why not do it by handing our more radio licenses?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
I gues you need it spelled out more clearly, or you can stop being a condescending ass and explain what you mean. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSCENITIES AND POLITICAL SPEECH.</end quote></div>
I've explained it multiple times. I'm not going to continue wasting Anand's bandwidth by hashing through it again, especially since I have no confidence you have any interest whatsoever in actually understanding and addressing my point.

You are calling anyone that disagrees with you on this a hypocrite. Believing that its ok for the government to regulate speech when it comes to pornographic material and obscenities but not ok when it comes to political speech is not hypocritical. Those are two completely separate things.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50
1. Why is it that the ONLY form of media targeted is the ONLY form of media where conservatives are the minority, don't you find that a bit odd?

2. How can you be in favor of enacting legislation when you have no idea what it actually means? You still have not answered the question as to how this will be enforced, who will decide what is allowed on the air and how they will decide that.

3. Since only conservatives listen to talk radio because we need to be told how and what to think, why does the left want to force conservatives off the air to make room for liberals, if they have no interest in being told how or what to think?

4. Can anyone point to some proof that shows that liberals are being deliberately denied the use of public airwaves? Especially after liberals got their own station, but it failed miserably. Could it be that people just don't want to listen to liberals on the radio?

5. Stop effing telling me what I should or shouldn't listen to on the radio. Go watch your liberal news, liberal movies, read your liberal newspapers, and leave me the hell alone while I try and listen to conservative talk radio on my way to work.

You keep slamming anyone that listens to conservative talk radio with your idiotic insults which doesn't help your argument one bit.

?

If you're addressing this to me, I suggest you go back and find examples of me doing (or not doing) the things you're accusing "you" of doing. From my standpoint, your list looks like a nice collection of red herrings and straw men, all of which have already been deconstructed.

Yes, I have noticed that just about anything that you disagree with and/or can't answer you call a red herring or a strawman.

You assertion that this is just about public airwaves is just a red herring, so cry me a river.

So it was targeted at me? OK, your funeral. Let me show you how this works:

1. I've said multiple times, from my first or second post in this thread, that this should apply to ALL forms of broadcast media, not just AM. I have never defended any efforts to limit this to AM.

2. I have now pointed out at least twice that we cannot begin to work out the details until we have a common base upon which to build. I acknowledge working out those details will be a challenge.

3. Nobody is trying to force conservatives off the air, as has been pointed out dozens of times. It is a blatant red herring, typical sky-is-falling hysteria.

4. Another red herring. I am not making that claim, and once again, early in the thread, said I did not think this was happening. The fact of the matter is, however, that AM spectrum is limited and largely full.

5. Another red herring if not an outright lie. I have never told you what you can or cannot listen to.

Will there be anything else?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50
I gues you need it spelled out more clearly, or you can stop being a condescending ass and explain what you mean. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSCENITIES AND POLITICAL SPEECH.

I've explained it multiple times. I'm not going to continue wasting Anand's bandwidth by hashing through it again, especially since I have no confidence you have any interest whatsoever in actually understanding and addressing my point.

You are calling anyone that disagrees with you on this a hypocrite. Believing that its ok for the government to regulate speech when it comes to pornographic material and obscenities but not ok when it comes to political speech is not hypocritical. Those are two completely separate things.

Sigh. You can lead a horse to water ...

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
On the contrary, the issue of porn doesn't cloud the issue, it clarifies it. If you acknowledge the government has a legitimate interest in regulating broadcast pornography, then you have, in fact, acknowledged that some forms of regulation are beneficial. The discussion can then focus on where we draw the line and why. As long as you continue to pretend no broadcast regulation is acceptable, we have no basis for productive discussion. I strongly oppose "censorship" in general (see my .sig), but I recognize there needs to be some ground rules for the use of our public airwaves, a very limited, valuable, and powerful resource.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So you are telling me we have to adopt the rules and then we can debate how to implement them?

No. I am saying it is pointless to try to define how to achieve a goal when we can't even agree on what the goal is.

I don?t think there is a need to ensure the airwaves are ?fair and balanced.? There are 10,000 radio stations in this country, I am sure if there was a need for liberal talk radio someone would put them on the air.

If there is a need to provide more points of views on the radio then why not do it by handing our more radio licenses?

Because, as I have pointed out so many times already, AM broadcast spectrum is a scare resource, and it is largely saturated. Please read my first post in this thread before you continue to beat this dead horse.

 

[ProfJohn]

Bow, the air waves do serve the public good by providing them with what they want to hear. Any attempt by the government to impose ?fairness? will result in someone in Washington deciding what is and is not ?fair.? Therefore we will by taking the freedom of choice from the American people.

Finally? we are at 188 posts in this thread and I have yet to see ONE person tell us who gets to decide what constitutes ?fairness? on the airwaves. Why is that? How can you have a ?fairness doctrine? without having someone decide what is and is not fair?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bow, the air waves do serve the public good by providing them with what they want to hear.

No, not so. I've addressed this already, but I'm not going to dig back through the thread to find the quotes. In brief, is it in a child's interest to feed him candy and chips because that's what he wants? Do we decide broadcast pronography is in the public interest just because there's a big market for it? In a similar vein, the puiblic interest is not served by a one-sided, often factually inaccurate presentation of views. It is in the public interest to have a well-informed electorate who has at least some awareness of other sides of issues.

Any attempt by the government to impose ?fairness? will result in someone in Washington deciding what is and is not ?fair.? Therefore we will by taking the freedom of choice from the American people.

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.

Finally? we are at 188 posts in this thread and I have yet to see ONE person tell us who gets to decide what constitutes ?fairness? on the airwaves. Why is that? How can you have a ?fairness doctrine? without having someone decide what is and is not fair?

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
In order to have a productive discussion on how to define and measure "fair and balanced", we need to agree that there is a legitimate interest in ensuring the use of our public airwaves is fair and balanced. Until we have that common base, we will never be working together to define a workable set of regulations. Anything one side tries to define unilaterally will be automatically rejected by the other.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bow, the air waves do serve the public good by providing them with what they want to hear. Any attempt by the government to impose ?fairness? will result in someone in Washington deciding what is and is not ?fair.? Therefore we will by taking the freedom of choice from the American people.

Finally? we are at 188 posts in this thread and I have yet to see ONE person tell us who gets to decide what constitutes ?fairness? on the airwaves. Why is that? How can you have a ?fairness doctrine? without having someone decide what is and is not fair?

Maybe they can broadcast Fox News on AM; "Fair and balanced". :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bow, the air waves do serve the public good by providing them with what they want to hear. </end quote></div>
No, not so. I've addressed this already, but I'm not going to dig back through the thread to find the quotes. In brief, is it in a child's interest to feed him candy and chips because that's what he wants? Do we decide broadcast pronography is in the public interest just because there's a big market for it? In a similar vein, the puiblic interest is not served by a one-sided, often factually inaccurate presentation of views. It is in the public interest to have a well-informed electorate who has at least some awareness of other sides of issues.

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.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Any attempt by the government to impose ?fairness? will result in someone in Washington deciding what is and is not ?fair.? Therefore we will by taking the freedom of choice from the American people.</end quote></div>
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.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Finally? we are at 188 posts in this thread and I have yet to see ONE person tell us who gets to decide what constitutes ?fairness? on the airwaves. Why is that? How can you have a ?fairness doctrine? without having someone decide what is and is not fair?</end quote></div>
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
In order to have a productive discussion on how to define and measure "fair and balanced", we need to agree that there is a legitimate interest in ensuring the use of our public airwaves is fair and balanced. Until we have that common base, we will never be working together to define a workable set of regulations. Anything one side tries to define unilaterally will be automatically rejected by the other. </end quote></div>

And ProfJohn has failed to notice the posts where it was explained that all of this 'it can't work' nonsense the right is posting misses one simple fact -

It was already in place working just fine for decades, disproving their claim with that thing they don't like much, facts.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bow, the air waves do serve the public good by providing them with what they want to hear. </end quote></div>
No, not so. I've addressed this already, but I'm not going to dig back through the thread to find the quotes. In brief, is it in a child's interest to feed him candy and chips because that's what he wants? Do we decide broadcast pronography is in the public interest just because there's a big market for it? In a similar vein, the puiblic interest is not served by a one-sided, often factually inaccurate presentation of views. It is in the public interest to have a well-informed electorate who has at least some awareness of other sides of issues.</end quote></div>

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.

Wrong. That is up to the parents to screen. If they feel marked driven crap is bad for their kid, tune out and use good old fashion parenting.
National Forests? Silly argument. That's a stretch.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.</end quote></div>
Ahh, now you're moving the goal posts. Until now, the clamor has been on the red herring that Rush, et al, would be silenced. That is and always was nonsense. The real issue is that the 7x24 broadcast of one particular partisan agenda would have to end, in favor of a balanced presentation of the issues. Rush & Co. still get heard, but they would have to share the public airwaves with those holding opposite views.

You can call that censorship 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differing views. Those sheep who never want to hear anything they disagree with can still do so, but not on the public airwaves. Willful ignorance does not serve the public interest in a representive democracy.

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.)?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.

Ahh, now you're moving the goal posts. Until now, the clamor has been on the red herring that Rush, et al, would be silenced. That is and always was nonsense. The real issue is that the 7x24 broadcast of one particular partisan agenda would have to end, in favor of a balanced presentation of the issues. Rush & Co. still get heard, but they would have to share the public airwaves with those holding opposite views.

You can call that censorship 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differing views. Those sheep who never want to hear anything they disagree with can still do so, but not on the public airwaves. Willful ignorance does not serve the public interest in a representive democracy.

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.)?

Learn to read.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

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.)?

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.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Bowfinger, I think we can all agree agree that it's "in the public interest to have a well-informed electorate who has at least some awareness of other sides of issues". But I think that most people believe that this isn't a problem in this day and age of highly evolved communications where every viewpoint imaginable is available through numerous outlets for public consumption.

It strikes me as odd that you make little or no mention of applying Fairness Doctrine to other media outlets which tradionally reflect liberal viewpoints, where conservative viewpoints are rarely conveyed. That said, it appears that your definition of "fairness" is partisan in nature and not as altruistic as you would have us all believe.

Do you really care about fairness? Are you genuinely concerned about public awareness of other viewpoints? Or would it be fair to say that you're actually much more concerned about promoting liberal viewpoints and suppressing conservative viewpoints?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Bowfinger, I think we can all agree agree that it's "in the public interest to have a well-informed electorate who has at least some awareness of other sides of issues". But I think that most people believe that this isn't a problem in this day and age of highly evolved communications where every viewpoint imaginable is available through numerous outlets for public consumption.

It strikes me as odd that you make little or no mention of applying Fairness Doctrine to other media outlets which tradionally reflect liberal viewpoints, where conservative viewpoints are rarely conveyed. That said, it appears that your definition of "fairness" is partisan in nature and not as altruistic as you would have us all believe.

Do you really care about fairness? Are you genuinely concerned about public awareness of other viewpoints? Or would it be fair to say that you're actually much more concerned about promoting liberal viewpoints and suppressing conservative viewpoints?

I think any fair minded person knows the answer to that.