Fairness Doctrine

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont forget the excuse for such actions always sounds noble. Like fairness or diversity ect ect. When somebody tells you they are taking away your right for your own good. That is the first sign it isnt going to go as promised.

You mean like domestic spying, secret prisons, and being held without trial or counsel? How about so-called "morality" issues like abstinence-only education, abortion, and gay marriage? Maybe you mean "liberating" those poor, ignorant Iraqis who were just too stupid to realize they needed an American-style democracy, even if we have to destroy their country and kill every last one of them. Is that what you meant?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont forget the excuse for such actions always sounds noble. Like fairness or diversity ect ect. When somebody tells you they are taking away your right for your own good. That is the first sign it isnt going to go as promised.</end quote></div>
You mean like domestic spying, secret prisons, and being held without trial or counsel? ......useless idiotic drivel removed..... Is that what you meant?

Welcome to the party Bowfinger. That is exactly what *I'm* saying. Now, lets see if you can find a post by me that supports secret prisons, being held without trial or counsel, or domestic spying.....Good luck!

 

[JD50]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jrenz
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jrenz
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>2) It's irrelevant even if we could.</end quote></div>
Yeah, I guess the heart of this argument is irrelevant to the argument itself.</end quote></div>
Except it's not the heart of the argument. It's not even relevant to my argument. If you'd bother to read my earlier posts, you'll find my reasoning. You might then choose to respond to the appropriate post with your own opposing reasoning. That's how we have productive discussions. Since you appear to lack the ambition to read the thread, I assume you'll just invent another bogus issue to attack, and then you'll whine when I point out it is another diversion.


</end quote></div>

I'm going to pop my head back in here real quick. Your whole argument has been based around 2 things, public airwaves and the "scarcity" of public airwaves on AM talk radio. If you have the ability to add more liberal talk radio shows right now, then the scarcity of these airwaves are irrelevant.

So basically, you favor the government forcing people (that don't want to) to put liberal talk radio shows on the air, that people don't want to listen to because there is no demand for it. If there was demand for it then there would be more liberal talk radio shows. This is just silly. No one wants to put these shows on their station. No one wants to host the liberal radio shows. No one wants to listen to them. So you are forcing everyone, by force of government, to do things that they don't want to do, just so you can feel better about being fair.

So the end result will be shows on the air that no one listens to, and the hosts don't even want to do them, and the station doesn't even want it on the air. But at least its fair.


Edit - I know I said that we'd have to agree to disagree, but I was a little confused when you just said that its irrelevant that we are not running short on public airwaves, which kills the whole "scarcity" argument.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

The bottom line is broadcast spectrum is a scarce resource, roads are not.......blah blah.....Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.

Yer funny Stink.

You're not. You're just childish. Trolling for another vacation?

Scarcity is just a bogus argument. All economic endeavours advantage themselves of "scarce" resources. That is the point, ain't it, otherwise everything would be "free".

Except, as you well know, some resources are far more scarce than others. As I already pointed out, we can have tens of millions of people on our public roads, and their usage of those roads has little impact on anyone outside of a hundred-yard radius. Only a few thousand people can be broadcasting at any given moment -- only a handful within a specific market -- and their actions impact hundreds of thousands, if not millions. I'll take the fact that you evaded these points as an implicit acknowledgement you can't challenge them.

You know if you think about it, it was really a pretty dumb comparison on your part. Use of our public roads is heavily regulated. Both the vehicles and their drivers must be licensed. There are endless controls on what one can do behind the wheel, how one does them, and where things are and aren't allowed. One compromises several civil liberties while using public roadways, yet rational people accept this as necessary to the public interest.

Every resource is finite--even roads. The demand for additional roadway exists. Ask any commuter. If adding road capacity were such an easy practical option, there would be no gridlock during the times people rely most on our public roadways.

Once again, I addressed this. I didn't claim adding new roads was easy. Your argument is specious.

There is this new invention called Frequency Modulation which significantly diminished the "scarcity" of the public airwaves.

Nope, you're still not funny. Not everyone has access to FM, plus FM spectrum is as scarce as AM in many markets. Your ignorance of spectrum availability does not change the facts.

Digital transmission using "public airwaves" diminishes that scarcity even further--regardless of how impractical *you* think it is in implementing. It is as simple as buying a new radio. We're not talking about thousands of dollars in HD tv's.......oh no. How about $199 for a JVC car stereo...... .....or $159 for a home radio.

That was really dumb. First of all, switching to digital is hardly as "simple as buying a new radio." It requires billions of dollars of investment in new processing and broadcasting infrastructure. Second, buying new radios is tremendously expensive. It's not just that millions of people cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars on new radios. It's also the total economic cost: assume 100,000,000 million families at only two radios per family, and the total cost is $36 Billion.

So, tell me again how "simple" this is. ROFL.

The public's interest defines the public interest--unless you're a lefty, then the public can't be trusted.

I think the right has more firmly established its dominance in not trusting the public, thank you very much.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont forget the excuse for such actions always sounds noble. Like fairness or diversity ect ect. When somebody tells you they are taking away your right for your own good. That is the first sign it isnt going to go as promised.

You mean like domestic spying, secret prisons, and being held without trial or counsel? [ Examples Corn can't address removed ] Is that what you meant?

Welcome to the party Bowfinger. That is exactly what *I'm* saying. Now, lets see if you can find a post by me that supports secret prisons, being held without trial or counsel, or domestic spying.....Good luck!

Hey I know teh Intarnets is hard and all, but I wasn't replying to you. Why don't you go back to OT where your pointless noise blends in better.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Corn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The bottom line is broadcast spectrum is a scarce resource, roads are not.......blah blah.....Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.</end quote></div>

Yer funny Stink. </end quote></div>
You're not. You're just childish. Trolling for another vacation?

Since when are cute little nicknames derived from Poster's actual nicknames a bannable offense? How typical of the freedom loving liberal. Your whining is also childish....but you don't see me whining about yer whining. But by all means, please beg the mods to ban me, you know you wanna.

As far as the rest of your post goes while you believe I'm not funny, you sure are. Like how not everyone has access to FM. Welcome to 2007 dude, FM has been standard equipment on radios for like 40 years now. Yer a regular Bob Hope.

As far as your digital broadcast argument is concerned, 9/10's of the radio stations in the Detroit market (where I live) broadcast in digital. You are free to look up your markethere. Please report back on your findings.

Gaining access to digital radio is as simple as buying a $150 radio today, or a $50 radio tomorrow. ROFL!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
I'm going to pop my head back in here real quick. Your whole argument has been based around 2 things, public airwaves and the "scarcity" of public airwaves on AM talk radio.

Essentially corerct, though I didn't say anything about AM "talk radio". It is AM spectrum in general that is scarce, regardless of what kinds of programming use it.

If you have the ability to add more liberal talk radio shows right now, then the scarcity of these airwaves are irrelevant.

But it isn't, as I've already explictly addressed repeatedly, including at least one reply directly to you. If you really want to discuss this, you need to read my replies and address them directly, not raise the same issue over and over while ignoring my response.

So basically, you favor the government forcing people (that don't want to) to put liberal talk radio shows on the air, that people don't want to listen to because there is no demand for it. If there was demand for it then there would be more liberal talk radio shows. This is just silly. No one wants to put these shows on their station. No one wants to host the liberal radio shows. No one wants to listen to them. So you are forcing everyone, by force of government, to do things that they don't want to do, just so you can feel better about being fair.

Sorry, it's another straw man. I never suggested stations had to put liberal talk shows on the air, nor did I suggest people should be forced to listen to them. Your mistake is fixating on "liberal talk shows" as the only way to present balanced views. It simply isn't so.

So the end result will be shows on the air that no one listens to, and the hosts don't even want to do them, and the station doesn't even want it on the air. But at least its fair.

No, the end result is that savvy station owners will find a way to present more balanced coverage while still providing programming people want to listen to. Those owners who can't figure that out will fail, but that's the nature of business. Someone else will take the place of those who can't adjust to serving the public interest.

Edit - I know I said that we'd have to agree to disagree, but I was a little confused when you just said that its irrelevant that we are not running short on public airwaves, which kills the whole "scarcity" argument.

Again, you need to read what I actually write. I didn't say we are not running short on public airwaves. In fact, I've consistently said the opposite, and offered one example supporting my position. What I did say was that whether we are or are not completely out of spectrum is irrelevant to the fundamental issue of ensuring the for-proft use of public airways serves the public interest. Big difference.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn

The bottom line is broadcast spectrum is a scarce resource, roads are not.......blah blah.....Further, while roadway capacity is limited in a sense, we have the ability to add more roadways if demand increases.

Yer funny Stink.

You're not. You're just childish. Trolling for another vacation?

Since when are cute little nicknames derived from Poster's actual nicknames a bannable offense? How typical of the freedom loving liberal. Your whining is also childish....but you don't see me whining about yer whining. But by all means, please beg the mods to ban me, you know you wanna.

:roll:

I have never in my time here asked the mods to vacation or ban anyone. I always figured they can run this place fine without my meddling. I simply note this is the same behavior that got you vacationed before, as I remember it.

I'd ask how you rationalize "Stink" as coming from "Bowfinger", but I'm sure the answer would be both convoluted and dishonest.

As far as the rest of your post goes while you believe I'm not funny, you sure are. Like how not everyone has access to FM. Welcome to 2007 dude, FM has been standard equipment on radios for like 40 years now. Yer a regular Bob Hope.

As far as your digital broadcast argument is concerned, 9/10's of the radio stations in the Detroit market (where I live) broadcast in digital. You are free to look up your markethere. Please report back on your findings.

That's nice. How many people in Detroit have digital radios? It's another diversion in any case, since as I pointed out (and you again evaded), I never claimed adding capacity was impossible, merely difficult and very expensive. You're the one who claimed it is easy, an absurd claim I neatly shredded.

Gaining access to digital radio is as simple as buying a $150 radio today, or a $50 radio tomorrow. ROFL!

Many people don't have $150 today or $50 tomorrow to spend on radios, another point you continue to evade.

 

[Corn]

I would bet the newspaper publisher to reader ratio is significantly lower than the broadcaster to listener ratio. The argument of "thousands" affecting "millions" is also bogus when freedom of the press is concerned. I know, paper, ink, gasoline, and roads are not a "scarce" public resource in your eyes. We disagree and the only thing you have supporting your agrument is your opinion. I would never in a millions years tell you what you have to say--and that's the difference between you and I, for if I were a broadcaster you would force me to broadcast opinions I do not hold. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is in the public's interest. "Fairness" is in the interest of liberals whom cannot offer a product worthy of the public's interest.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn
I would bet the newspaper publisher to reader ratio is significantly lower than the broadcaster to listener ratio. The argument of "thousands" affecting "millions" is also bogus when freedom of the press is concerned. I know, paper, ink, gasoline, and roads are not a "scarce" public resource in your eyes. We disagree and the only thing you have supporting your agrument is your opinion. I would never in a millions years tell you what you have to say--and that's the difference between you and I, for if I were a broadcaster you would force me to broadcast opinions I do not hold. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is in the public's interest. "Fairness" is in the interest of liberals whom cannot offer a product worthy of the public's interest.

You'd have more credibility if you stopped lying about my positions and claims.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Gaining access to digital radio is as simple as buying a $150 radio today, or a $50 radio tomorrow. ROFL!</end quote></div>
Many people don't have $150 today or $50 tomorrow to spend on radios, another point you continue to evade.

You claim people do not have access to FM radio, of course you'd think people can't purchase a $50 radio. :roll:

Your memory is as feeble as your attempt to hide your hypocrisy. I've been vacationed a whopping total of twice, once for a week (deserved), the other (recently) was originally a week and when presented with a complete picture of the discussion the mods immediately changed their mind and I was unvacationed. You go ahead with your continuing dishonesty though, its what you do best.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Corn
I would bet the newspaper publisher to reader ratio is significantly lower than the broadcaster to listener ratio. The argument of "thousands" affecting "millions" is also bogus when freedom of the press is concerned. I know, paper, ink, gasoline, and roads are not a "scarce" public resource in your eyes. We disagree and the only thing you have supporting your agrument is your opinion. I would never in a millions years tell you what you have to say--and that's the difference between you and I, for if I were a broadcaster you would force me to broadcast opinions I do not hold. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is in the public's interest. "Fairness" is in the interest of liberals whom cannot offer a product worthy of the public's interest.</end quote></div>
You'd have more credibility if you stopped lying about my positions and claims.

Really........

Only a few thousand people can be broadcasting at any given moment -- only a handful within a specific market -- and their actions impact hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

Please tell me you didn't say that. I made a comparison you felt was invalid because of said argument and used said argument to make another comparison. It is you who is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[shrumpage]

To Bow:

Sorry for getting your arguments mixed up with Craigs, I withdraw those questions, though Craig is more then free to address them.

on number 3.

That is easy - don't have the fairness doctrine. But those who insist on it should be the one to bring a solution to such an obvious problem.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
on number 3.

That is easy - don't have the fairness doctrine. But those who insist on it should be the one to bring a solution to such an obvious problem.

 

[Genx87]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont forget the excuse for such actions always sounds noble. Like fairness or diversity ect ect. When somebody tells you they are taking away your right for your own good. That is the first sign it isnt going to go as promised.</end quote></div>
You mean like domestic spying, secret prisons, and being held without trial or counsel? How about so-called "morality" issues like abstinence-only education, abortion, and gay marriage? Maybe you mean "liberating" those poor, ignorant Iraqis who were just too stupid to realize they needed an American-style democracy, even if we have to destroy their country and kill every last one of them. Is that what you meant?
</end quote></div>

Sure, so we are in agreement then? The fairness doctrine is nothing more than curtailing freedom of speech under the guise of "fairness". Much like domestic spying and secret prisons are under the guise of protecting us from terrorists?

Good to know sparky.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont forget the excuse for such actions always sounds noble. Like fairness or diversity ect ect. When somebody tells you they are taking away your right for your own good. That is the first sign it isnt going to go as promised.</end quote></div>
You mean like domestic spying, secret prisons, and being held without trial or counsel? How about so-called "morality" issues like abstinence-only education, abortion, and gay marriage? Maybe you mean "liberating" those poor, ignorant Iraqis who were just too stupid to realize they needed an American-style democracy, even if we have to destroy their country and kill every last one of them. Is that what you meant?
</end quote></div></end quote></div>

Sure, so we are in agreement then? The fairness doctrine is nothing more than curtailing freedom of speech under the guise of "fairness". Much like domestic spying and secret prisons are under the guise of protecting us from terrorists?

Good to know sparky.

Glad that you replied, seeing as how Middlefinger believes that you are the only one who should be allowed to respond to his post. Damn, those hard intarnets get me evertime.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

The letter to Kneuer is the tip-off. This is how they intend to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They are not going to offer the usual liberal talking points about conservative talk shows hosts being one-sided. The argument this time around is that talk radio is hateful and causing injury and death to people. In making this argument, they are taking a page from the Bill Clinton playbook. Then-President Clinton tried to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative talk radio.

Why not, after all it probably would work

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
The letter to Kneuer is the tip-off. This is how they intend to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They are not going to offer the usual liberal talking points about conservative talk shows hosts being one-sided. The argument this time around is that talk radio is hateful and causing injury and death to people. In making this argument, they are taking a page from the Bill Clinton playbook. Then-President Clinton tried to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative talk radio.

Why not, after all it probably would work

Protect us from our free speech!!!!!!1111!111111.1.1..1..........

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Corn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya
The letter to Kneuer is the tip-off. This is how they intend to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They are not going to offer the usual liberal talking points about conservative talk shows hosts being one-sided. The argument this time around is that talk radio is hateful and causing injury and death to people. In making this argument, they are taking a page from the Bill Clinton playbook. Then-President Clinton tried to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative talk radio.

Why not, after all it probably would work</end quote></div>

Protect us from our free speech!!!!!!1111!111111.1.1..1..........

Getting visions of V for Vendetta in my head.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
To Bow:

Sorry for getting your arguments mixed up with Craigs, I withdraw those questions, though Craig is more then free to address them.

What questions are you referring to? Repost them.

I hope it's not this mess:

I would bet the newspaper publisher to reader ratio is significantly lower than the broadcaster to listener ratio. The argument of "thousands" affecting "millions" is also bogus when freedom of the press is concerned. I know, paper, ink, gasoline, and roads are not a "scarce" public resource in your eyes. We disagree and the only thing you have supporting your agrument is your opinion. I would never in a millions years tell you what you have to say--and that's the difference between you and I, for if I were a broadcaster you would force me to broadcast opinions I do not hold. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is in the public's interest. "Fairness" is in the interest of liberals whom cannot offer a product worthy of the public's interest.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: shrumpage
To Bow:

Sorry for getting your arguments mixed up with Craigs, I withdraw those questions, though Craig is more then free to address them.

What questions are you referring to? Repost them.

I hope it's not this mess:

I would bet the newspaper publisher to reader ratio is significantly lower than the broadcaster to listener ratio. The argument of "thousands" affecting "millions" is also bogus when freedom of the press is concerned. I know, paper, ink, gasoline, and roads are not a "scarce" public resource in your eyes. We disagree and the only thing you have supporting your agrument is your opinion. I would never in a millions years tell you what you have to say--and that's the difference between you and I, for if I were a broadcaster you would force me to broadcast opinions I do not hold. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is in the public's interest. "Fairness" is in the interest of liberals whom cannot offer a product worthy of the public's interest.

No - these ones:

2. The double standard. Talk radio has to much power?, yet Craig cites Cronkite as swaying national opinion on the Vietnam war, and that this was a good thing. Its okay for Cronkite to do it but Rush to sway opinion? Thats bad.

6. Why the Hell did you bring up Ann Colter? She wouldn't be affected by this - she doesn't have a radio or TV show. She is just a writer.

7. Corp control vs. Content. You don't like Corps owning everything in a market, fine - i can get on board with that. But you need to separate the two issues. Government regulating ownership is much different then regulating speech and content.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
2. The double standard. Talk radio has to much power?, yet Craig cites Cronkite as swaying national opinion on the Vietnam war, and that this was a good thing. Its okay for Cronkite to do it but Rush to sway opinion? Thats bad.

What is your question? Cronkite was under the fairness doctrine, and Limbaugh isn't.

If you are arguing that the fairness doctrine prevents any political speech, then your equating the influence of Cronkite to Limbaugh above proves you wrong.

On the other hand, Cronkite's Viet Nam comments were an exception, a few minutes under 1% of his broadcast, while Limbaugh spouts opinion for thousands of hours, ~100% of his.

You are bouncing around unable to pick a position - one minute, the fairness doctring prevents political speech, the next you are aguing it was just as strong as now.

The simple fact is that the right-wing monied interests have created a market for political speech, with years and billions of effort, that didn't exist then.

You need to be careful on cause and effect, because the political efforts of right-wing leaders, including their money, are what caused a lot more than the fairness doctrine.

6. Why the Hell did you bring up Ann Colter? She wouldn't be affected by this - she doesn't have a radio or TV show. She is just a writer.

Because we were comparing the leading commentators under the fairness doctrine and now, and I wanted to point out that the culture the current atmosphere with the new huge right-wing radio market has inflenced has allowed for the rise of an Ann Coulter to be a leading national voice. It seems the sort of poisonous effect of the incubation of the right-wing nonsense for the millions who are immersed in it, with little outside (and more accurate) information.

I agree with you - if I didn't say it already - that she is not an issue for the fairness doctrine directly, much.

7. Corp control vs. Content. You don't like Corps owning everything in a market, fine - i can get on board with that. But you need to separate the two issues. Government regulating ownership is much different then regulating speech and content.

We may find common ground here. I, too, prefer the government to protect diversity, and oppose consolidation, of ownership than to have any hand in the content.

(With exceptions, e.g, PBS).

The last thing I want is the government having the power to be a propagandizing voice in the media. For all the right-wing noise, PBS avoids that role.

We may or may not agree that it's a problem whether the media are dominated either by the government or by corporate interests.

I want corporations to have 'a voice', I want little old ladies to have 'a voice', and everyone in-between.

 

[shrumpage]

I'm not bouncing around, I'm just trying to nail down your posisiton. Part of the argument has been talk radio holds to much sway, by citing Cronkite, i was trying to figure out if it is acceptable some one to have that much sway over public opinion.

Granted when Cronkite was on, what was the competition on TV, was what? 2 other channels? Depending on the market you have 2-8 times the competition - and that is just broadcast television.


On Ann Colter. You just reinforced my point about the growth of the right wing. There is a market, it is growing and there is a demand! Her books sell the the public Has Al Franken been as successful? Does his lack of sales, or the lack of 'ant-colter' book sales indicate people DON'T want to read or support those ideas. The market is responding to what the public wants.

The last thing I want is the government having the power to be a propagandizing voice in the media. For all the right-wing noise, PBS avoids that role.

Take a look at the references i posted about administrations using the fairness doctrine to shut down opposition.

 

[Craig234]

Shrumpage, you're still missing the point on markets, that they're two ways - they create demand as well as satisfy it.

When you have a lot of money and an agenda, you can create a 'market'. There's a history of how the right-wing has organized and been funded, which leads to the creation of the 'markets' you speak of.

It's not accurate to pretend that there are just this mass of tens of millions of people who have wanted right-wing talk radio for decades, and the market just failed to deliver it to them until recently.

My argument isn't based on any one voice having 'too much sway', but rather the larger issues that the system is allowing too much consolidation which limits free speech, and gives too much power to the monied corporate interests. I don't want the government saying "that Rush is too popular, let's go after him"; I do want them saying the media has become too narrowly owned for the public interest.

For all I care as far as government intervention, let 99% of Americans listen to and follow Rush, as long as he's playing on a fair playing field - that's where his ideas need to be debated and defeated 'fair and square'. It's when the content is not merely 'meeting' consumer demand, but being pushed on consumers to serve a narrow agenda by a few huge media owners, that I'm saying it's a problem.

Things are pretty broken today, and I'd like that improved before we lose the parts that still work. Where I live, in the San Francisco area, six million people in nine counties are all served daily newspapers down from many choices earlier to where every paper for that whole area is published by one man, except for one paper, the SF Chronicle.

That robs the papers of a richness of debate and diversity. Saying 'it's what the market wants' is neither an answer to the issue nor accurate, there are a lot of factors other than public preference.

 

[Fern]

Topic Title: Fairness Doctrine
Topic Summary: Its all about Congress defeating dissenting

For the many reasons mentioned here and elsewhere on this topic, this law is as bad or worse as the (dead) immigration bill.

Just as the immigration bill caused a big political "Sh!t Storm", I predict this will cause an even bigger one.

And imagine how it will look to the rest of the world?

As even the supporters of this bill concede, it's aimed at right-wing radio shows. So how will it look when the Dem controlled Congress passes a bill effectively silencing their political opposition and forcing their own "propganda" on the airwaves?

It'll look like censorship and the end of the 1st Amendment.

-----------------------------------------------

If I thought Congress were actually this stupid, I'd be buying stock in satelite radio companies. That's likely where the evil right-wing content would migrate.

Fern