Nancy Pelosi: repeal that pesky First Amendment. It makes my constituents cry.

does the fairness doctrine apply station to station or market to market?

I'm wondering how many supporters of the fairness doctrine are getting contributions for Sirius/XM.

Seems like this rule is just the thing that would drive a lot of popular talk radio hosts, and their audiences, to satellite radio.

Yes, ban the Fairness Doctrine.
We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.

Yes, ban the Fairness Doctrine.
We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.

Yes, ban the Fairness Doctrine.
We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.
Posted by morris

I take it you would rather trust a politician?

I believe it is station to station...

Posted by James_Dean

Then it's kinda dictatorial... I guess. would it apply to public radio as well?

I take it you would rather trust a politician?

Posted by MrFair at 2008-06-25 12:07 PM |

Over someone trying to maximize his profit by any means possible?

Hell yes.

Pelosi is not poor... well not cash poor.

If this story gets put int he front page, my suggestino for the headline is:

Pelosi 'Repealig Fairness Doctrine off the Table'

which is 49 characters long. I even checked the length with the site's new character count feature and 351 were left.

Over someone trying to maximize his profit by any means possible?

Hell yes.

Posted by morris

Um, Morris - that sure describes most politicians I've read about. They just do it on our dime.

The air waves do not belong to the stations that use them to broadcast. Those stations should be required to proved information that is reasonably honest and balanced which unfortunately the right wing talk stations simply do not do. If the fairness doctrine is brought back it will be because the right has abused the privelege they were granted when they were licensed to use OUR air waves. Even though a few rich bastards have contrived to own many radio stations and dramatically effect the outcomes of many elections in this country, it is not necessarily going to be allowed to continue that way. Iraq as an example proves there is far too much at stake to allow right wing propagandists to illinform voters without being forced to also provide honest contrasting arguments.

I thought the libs were gonna crush Fox News with Algore's Cable Network. You know..Algorezerra

What's wrong with letting left wingers start their own radio station and let the free market decided what they listen to?

War is Peace
Hate is Love
Fairness isn't Fair

-Winston Bush.

That would mean putting a Bill O'Reilly next to every Brian Williams on network tv too right?

"What's wrong with letting left wingers start their own radio station and let the free market decided what they listen to?"

That is what is happening now which is good and if it continues I don't think the Fairness Doctrine will return. However if major corporations that own the networks of radio stations start going back to exclusively conservative talkers then things will have to change. I don't think there will be regulation unless the conservatives bring it on themselves.

However if major corporations that own the networks of radio stations start going back to exclusively conservative talkers then things will have to change.

In a free market the listeners would stop listening, the advertising dollars would dry up, and the corporations would be forced to change. No government intervention necessary.

"No government intervention necessary."

From a right wing perspective of course you would say that but from my perspective I'm not so sure.
I doubt Bush would have been elected without right wing talk, I doubt we would be in Iraq without right wing talk, I doubt the Bush tax cuts would have screwed up the economy without right wing talk.
We will probably have a Democratic Congress and President who will want to be sure no right wing takeover happens again, the country wouldn't survive it, hell, we might not survive this one.

fairness doctrine

n.

A basic tenet of the licensed broadcasting industry in the United States that ensures reasonable opportunity for the airing of opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

OMFG COMMUNISTS!!!!!1111!!!!!1!

That would mean putting a Bill O'Reilly next to every Brian Williams on network tv too right?

So we get to see Keith Olbermann go on his tirade then Michelle Malkin has the rebuttal? Sounds fair to me.

To equally self-important asshats together.

Um, Morris - that sure describes most politicians I've read about. They just do it on our dime.

Posted by MrFair at 2008-06-25 12:54 PM |

And it applies to every person that has to answer to shareholders and a board of directors.

And, I would submit, that there are plenty of pols and gov't employees that you don't read about because they just do their jobs.

"To equally self-important asshats together."

I pretty much agree with you there.
This country is too punditized and real news becomes a rare commodity.

And it applies to every person that has to answer to shareholders and a board of directors.

And, I would submit, that there are plenty of pols and gov't employees that you don't read about because they just do their jobs.

Posted by morris

Morris - give it up, it's a weak argument. Bear in mind all those poor saps working at Wal-Mart or tellering at Citibank or pumping gas at Mobil. Same thing - the rank and file, but they all report to the shareholders don't they?

Bottom line: the market can decide what's on the radio. You've seen it in action already.

From a right wing perspective of course you would say that but from my perspective I'm not so sure.
I doubt Bush would have been elected without right wing talk, I doubt we would be in Iraq without right wing talk, I doubt the Bush tax cuts would have screwed up the economy without right wing talk.
We will probably have a Democratic Congress and President who will want to be sure no right wing takeover happens again, the country wouldn't survive it, hell, we might not survive this one.

Posted by danni

Danni - you went way off track with that last post. Yes right-wing radio helped Bush get elected but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has MILLIONS of faithful listeners/voters.

Left-wing radio just needs to broadcast something that will generate similar interest and numbers. That's all.

We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.

Since when has having money meant that your First Amendment rights don't apply? I must have missed that part of the Constitution, right along with the part that says you are only allowed to speak in public as long as you can find someone that disagrees with you.

If the fairness doctrine is brought back it will be because the right has abused the privelege they were granted when they were licensed to use OUR air waves.

Who is the "OUR" you are referring to in regards to ownership of the airwaves? The millions of listeners to conservative talk radio? The many liberal radio listeners that decided that Air America was a pile of crap? Or the many millions more of listeners that don't give a crap one way or the other and just tune in to the radio to hear music?

Tell me, which one of those groups is complaining about the lack of the "Fairness Doctrine"? Which one of those groups is the "OUR" that you speak of?

I used to drive to Lafayette from Port Allen about 4 times a week.

I'd be able to catch The Young Turks, Ed Schulz and Thom Hartmann in Port Allen, and Hannity/Rush in Lafayette.
It was great to be able to hear both sides (although they rarely talked about the same issues).

Eventually the liberal station turned gospel. They just couldn't seem to get advertisers.

Eventually the liberal station turned gospel. They just couldn't seem to get advertisers.

There was a liberal radio station in Dallas had the same problem -- no listeners and it folded.

That's why Pelosi et alia want this bill passed into law. They can't compete on an even playing field in radioland, so they want to legislatively bully their way in.

Please tell me why Air America gets crushed in the this country's largest media markey NYC even though Dems outnumber Republicans..... I would like to know.

Because Air America is boring. They really don't say the outlandish and borderline criminal things as loudly, or as often, as extreme right wing radio does.

People are rubberneckers. We like to see a train wreck. Rush limbaugh IS that train wreck. So is American idol. Cops. Jerry springer, every reality TV show, ect ect.

The popularity of all of these shows is based on the level of insanity and stupidity achieved by the players/participants. It's amusing to the audience.

What is "extreme right wing radio".

Alexandrite. I hope you don't work in advertising. YOu wouldn't last long

Please tell me why Air America gets crushed in the this country's largest media markey NYC even though Dems outnumber Republicans..... I would like to know.

Because when Al Franken says things like, I didn't object to the war, I objected to the fact we didn't do a good job by sending enough troops, then you aren't a liberal...you're conservative-lite.

you're conservative-lite

...or John McCain.

The point of the Fairness doctrine is not to make sure you have liberal/conservative, rep/dem, gay /straight etc. radio available.

The point is that I can go on radio show X and rebut host X so that X's listeners hear the TRUTH (as I see it)

As it stands now Host X can spew out lie after lie and the only rebuttal if any is usually on another radio station. So most of Host X's listeners will never hear the truth. (not that they usually want to)

So I ask all of you:

Do you fear the truth?

Ew. I would never listen to gay radio and I would think you might get a disease just by listening

SAL-
So if I'm a radio station program director I have some questions for you. (And I was one during the changeover back in Reagan's day)

1. How do I determine which opposing views are entitled to rebut? One, two, ten?

2. Of the "offending" time (Rush, for example) are we to take out a stopwatch and measure the amount of time he's saying something deserving of rebuttal? Who determines exactly what constitutes "rebuttable" material? Does Rush talking about his golf game, his cat, his cigars, etc, constitute "rebuttable" material?

3. From a profitability standpoint I need to sell airtime. That's a challenge when I don't know what sort of space I'll have to allot to any number of opposing views.

If liberals feel they are being shortchanged, perhaps they can take comfort in the many other media outlets sympathetic to their plight: the major networks, CNN, MSNBC, the Post, NY Times, Tribune, etc. All of which are (I believe) either losing readership or not generating the ratings they used to

Libs have dough. Why not buy some radio stations and program all the liberal content they wish?

It would be a great social experient if nothing else. Or, libs can look to government regulation to stifle opposing viewpoints. That's the upshot of the fairness doctrine... instilling fear among programmers to offer content which someone could construe as provocative. Bland is better... and safer.

"Left-wing radio just needs to broadcast something that will generate similar interest and numbers. That's all."

In many markets Progressive radio is competing very well against the right wing liars. Some markets they don't have stations yet and some they are on weak signals. The progressive shows haven't been instantaneously put on several hundred stations the way most of the popular right wing shows were but then the progressives don't represent the interests of the corporate owners of much of the media.

I have dream.

Replace 'Hannity and Colmes' with 'O'Reilly and Olbermann'.

It'd be great fun to have them on the same set at the same time.

Rupert probably has already thought of it and if he hasn't I want my fee.

OOH,

1. How do I determine which opposing views are entitled to rebut? One, two, ten?

Yes

2. Of the "offending" time (Rush, for example) are we to take out a stopwatch and measure the amount of time he's saying something deserving of rebuttal? Who determines exactly what constitutes "rebuttable" material? Does Rush talking about his golf game, his cat, his cigars, etc, constitute "rebuttable" material?

Perhaps we could maybe use a little bit of logic and reason on this yes?

3. From a profitability standpoint I need to sell airtime. That's a challenge when I don't know what sort of space I'll have to allot to any number of opposing views.

see above

The rest of your argument is really just regurgitated talking points. All of it points to the conclusion that you support lies.

The inaptly named "fairness doctrine" is nothing but a blatant attempt by Democrats and liberals to shut up views that they don't like.

It is far more fascist and freedom-inhibiting than anything ever done by the Bush administration.

I particularly love the whole 'public airwaves' arguement. A bunch of people and politicians, who are clearly in the minority, want to dictate to all of us what is and isn't appropriate in terms of opinion. We are not talking about prohibiting lewd topics or foul language (go ahead and make your obligatory jokes about Conservative talk being lewd and foul) here, we are talking about censoring opinions and views simply because a minority doesn't like them.

What a bunch of fascists FD supporters are. It's also typical of their collectivist mindset - screw competition and actually having to work for an audience, just look to the government to 'level the playing field'. Have you losers ever competed for anything in your pathetic lives, or do you expect the government to hand evertying to you?

Let me translate JeffJ:

I defend liars and their lies. I am afraid of the truth. I want my "side" to win at all costs.

That about sum it up?

That about sum it up?

What that sums up is a strawman which in no way addresses the points I have made.

Try again.

"The inaptly named "fairness doctrine" is nothing but a blatant attempt by Democrats and liberals to shut up views that they don't like."

Untrue, it is to ensure that someone can not tell lies on the air without any rebuttal at all.

"It is far more fascist and freedom-inhibiting than anything ever done by the Bush administration."

que?

"What a bunch of fascists FD supporters are. It's also typical of their collectivist mindset - screw competition and actually having to work for an audience, just look to the government to 'level the playing field'. Have you losers ever competed for anything in your pathetic lives, or do you expect the government to hand evertying to you?"

Regurgitated talking points boiling down to:
'I want to lie unimpeded.'

Regurgitated talking points boiling down to:
'I want to lie unimpeded.'

Posted by Salaryman

Salaryman - see: "The First Amendment"

Salaryman - also see: Randi Rhoades, Al Franken

Mr. Fair,

I hardly think the 1st amendment protects lies. If anything it is there to protect the truth from government.

As far as Rhoades and Franken; are they liars? I assume they are liberal commentators. Well by all means they should be exempt because I must be a liberal if I don't agree with "conservatives" right?

Salary - you are making a pretzel out of something very simple. Please note: there is free speech in this country, including on the radio.

If there is a problem with lies that actually cause damage to a person, then there are already laws to deal with slander and libel.

But if you are suggesting government intervention to monitor "lies" on the radio you're living in a fantasy world. There is no way to do it. I say let Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken say whatever the hell they want on the air. Unless they are calling for violence, let 'em talk.

I hardly think the 1st amendment protects lies.

Sure it does. Case in point: the fact that you have been allowed to post on this thread unimpeded.

As far as Rhoades and Franken; are they liars?

Short answer: yes.

I assume they are liberal commentators.

Of course you do. You have your biases just like everyone else.

Mr. Fair,

A pretzel is very simple.

On some level I agree with you. But I think that the poison that gets thrown out there and swallowed with out any rebuttal is dangerous.

I am not sure if I would call it government intervention to design the broadcast license with a mechanism that promotes truth.

MOONman,
Care to cite any lies from me?

care to tell me what my bias is?

Care to cite any lies from me?

Too easy.

"Let me translate JeffJ:

I defend liars and their lies. I am afraid of the truth. I want my "side" to win at all costs." -- posted by Salaryman

JeffJ never said any such thing, but hey, you have the right to say what you want regardless of the truth as long as you are not under oath.

care to tell me what my bias is?

Sure, you can't stand opposing conservative to the point that you feel you have to lie about another poster's words.

Moonie,

you confuse satire and sarcasm with lies. Also in this particular forum we have an awful lot of fairness doctrine to go around.

you confuse satire and sarcasm with lies.

Satire is used to point at a hidden truth. For it to be anything but a lie, the hidden meaning it is pointing to would have to be true. Since it isn't, you are guilty of lying.

But hey, I support your right to lie as much as you want via your Constitutional 1st Amendment rights.

Also in this particular forum we have an awful lot of fairness doctrine to go around.

Only be Rogers Cadenhead keeps it that way. If he were to change it tomorrow to ban opposing views, it would suck, but it would also be his right to do so.

Only be

should be: "Only because"

"1. How do I determine which opposing views are entitled to rebut? One, two, ten?" OOH
"Yes" - SAL

Care to splain that there answer, SAL?

I come out with an opinion on the air, say, about abortion. Put 10 people in a room and you'll likely get ten slightly different opinions on the topic. Just look at the DR when it comes up. Should every voice be mandated by law to be heard? If not, how & who decides what constitutes government-approved rebuttal? You? Me? The Central Scrutinizer?

Or the Iraq war and the overall WOT.

Who gets to monitor all the talk & programming? Should that extend to television as well? Newspapers?

If Americans are interested in truth and not lies (as I derive from your comments) then you'd think liberal radio would win the day. Maybe they just need more time, eh?

I am not sure if I would call it government intervention to design the broadcast license with a mechanism that promotes truth.
Posted by Salaryman

Salaryman - but who are The Anointed Ones who get to define "truth" and therefore what gets onto the airwaves??

Also to respond to this:
"On some level I agree with you. But I think that the poison that gets thrown out there and swallowed with out any rebuttal is dangerous."

The key word is "swallowed" which in the case of hearing something on the radio describes a voluntary act on the part of the listener. It's up to the individual to decide what is truth and what is BS. Most of us are able to make these distinctions every day without any help from a Fairness Doctrine. Hopefully each of us provides his own rebuttal to any perceived BS.

"Satire is used to point at a hidden truth."

Yes indeed my belief that who does not support something like a fairness doctrine is in fact supporting lies and liars.

"For it to be anything but a lie, the hidden meaning it is pointing to would have to be true."

anyone translate that for me?

"Since it isn't, you are guilty of lying."

Since most reasonable people would not take my post to be factual representation of JeffJ's actual words, and would instead understand that my words were an attempt at satirical humor then I fail to see any guilt on my part.

"Only be Rogers Cadenhead keeps it that way. If he were to change it tomorrow to ban opposing views, it would suck, but it would also be his right to do so."

I am really glad that you recognize the benefits of balanced debate. Please also understand that the airwaves are not private they are public, not unlike say a public sidewalk. Is any of this sinking in?

For argument's sake imagine that big corporations buy all the radio stations. They then can present only what they wish and obviously it would be a message that benefits themselves.
In the USA we had almost that bad of a situation during the run up to the Iraq WAr, an opposition voice in every major city could have presented opposing views (which would have disputed the lies of teh Bush administration) and convinced enough people that there was no need for an invasion. Over 4000 soldiers would still be alive and our economy would not be in the toilet right now.
Broadcasters managed fine when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.
Americans own the air waves and we need truthful news, a monopoly of right wing liars prevents the people from receiving accurate information. Therefore is is important that even if it makes the righties mad, even if it makes the right wing talkers mad, even if it makes the owners of those radio stations.....we need some sort of a system in place to prevent another disaster like the Iraq invasion.

"Most of us are able to make these distinctions every day without any help from a Fairness Doctrine."

Obviously not true or GWB would never have been president and he wouldn't have been able to sell his unnecessary war. That is the point of the fairness doctrine, people given one sided information don't have any way of knowing it is one sided. Most viewers of Fox News actually believe what those liars are telling them.

They then can present only what they wish and obviously it would be a message that benefits themselves.

Only if what they put on the air generates listenership. They can't put squat on the air without advertising revenues. They can't generate advertising revenues without listenership. In short, rigthwing talk dominates the airwaves because it generates listenership.

Broadcasters managed fine when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

What? AM radio was on its death bed. Lifting the FD is what saved the AM radio band.

Therefore is is important that even if it makes the righties mad, even if it makes the right wing talkers mad, even if it makes the owners of those radio stations

Translation: I want liberal talk on the air. Despite an enormous infusion of donations, Air America is a failing proposition. The most popular liberal talk show host has 1/10 the listenership of Rush Limbaugh. In short, it's obvious that liberal talk can't compete with conservative talk, therefore we must use the power of government to shut up conservative talk. After all, we know what's best and only our opinion of right and wrong is what matters.

Obviously not true or GWB would never have been president and he wouldn't have been able to sell his unnecessary war.

That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Get over yourself. You act as if everybody in this country, except for yourself and those who share your worldview, are complete and utter idiots incapable of independent thought.

people given one sided information don't have any way of knowing it is one sided.

What? "The Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies."

"Conservatism works every time it's tried."

"Etc."

That's the one nice thing about the opinion format - the broadcasters proudly wear their biases on their sleeves. I find biased journalists pretending to be objective (a wolf in sheep's clothing) to be far more dangerous. Rush has 20 million listeners per week and each and every one of them knows that his views are one-sided - he announces he's a conservative every chance he gets.

Let the market decide which radio shows survive and which don't.

Yes indeed my belief that who does not support something like a fairness doctrine is in fact supporting lies and liars.

No. What we are supporting is allowing the people, via their radio dials, to dictate what's on the air. Afterall, they are public airwaves.

Most viewers of Fox News actually believe what those liars are telling them.

Danni,

See MrFair's comments as a response to your typical paranoid liberal rant suggestion.....

It's up to the individual to decide what is truth and what is BS. Most of us are able to make these distinctions every day without any help from a Fairness Doctrine.

You see, once again, you fail to see that we can make decisions for ourselves.

Well, at least most of us can....

Danni -- in fairness (ahem) the Fairness doctrine should also apply to newspapers, magazines, blogs, movies, TV, etc. if we demand a perfectly homogenized, unbiased world.

You have to agree, right? If not, why single out radio? Could it be because that is the one single media element that the right wing dominates?

Nah -- that couldn't be it.

If the airwaves are public and we need "fairness" (sic), what about music?

Is it fair to have 6 radio stations playing Rockn'Roll and only 1 playing polkas? That isn't "fair". What about the silent masses who love polkas? They are being unfairly under-represented.

What about the major TV networks? Those are public airwaves too. Shouldn't the government simply dictate their schedule to them to make sure their lineup is "fair" and all-inclusive?

I know, maybe we should just have the government run all of our media. It would be the '1984' Utopian wet-dream for all 'Fairness Doctrine' supporters.

"Is it fair to have 6 radio stations playing Rockn'Roll and only 1 playing polkas? That isn't "fair"

And that's a stupid analogy. Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better. Democracy does not require that polka music fans like yourself are equally represented on the radio dial.

What about the 'public' education system?

Shouldn't conservatives have just as much control and influence over it as liberals? Forget the fact that liberals flock to the acedemia in far greater numbers and as such, instituting fairness would actually result in inserting Conservatives who are less qualified than some of their liberal counterparts. We need 'fairness', damnit!

We, the public, own the public education system every bit as much as we do the airwaves.

Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better

True. But if the people don't want to hear a specific view, is it the government's place to shove it down their throat?

And Jeff blows straw all over this thread.

And that's a stupid analogy.

It's not stupid at all. You and your ilk are arbitrarily deciding what's best for everybody else and are doing so under the false pretenses of "fairness" and "publicly owned airwaves". However, you are limiting your application of 'fairness' to the one venue where views you dislike are dominant.

Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better.

The ability to hear a broad variety of views has never been greater. We have countless print publications in a wide array of formats. We have radio, TV, satellite radio, cable TV, the internet, etc.

You guys don't need to shut down the talk radio format. You may actually crave a balanced format, but you know damn well that in application, FD will effectively kill the talk radio format; which is ultimately what you are stiving for.

"But if the people don't want to hear a specific view, is it the government's place to shove it down their throat?"

Speaking of straw, where did you get that? Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to anything. Making diverse views accessible is the issue.

And Jeff blows straw all over this thread.

And Bill can't refute Jeff's points so he simply pooh poohs them.

"It's not stupid at all. You and your ilk are arbitrarily deciding what's best for everybody else and are doing so under the false pretenses of "fairness" and "publicly owned airwaves". However, you are limiting your application of 'fairness' to the one venue where views you dislike are dominant."

Bullshit. Comparing the public interest in promoting democracy to the interest of polka music lovers is fucking asinine.

Making diverse views accessible is the issue.

And your mechanism for doing so kills the talk format.

How convenient.

Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better.

And shutting someone up is accomplishing this??

Comparing the public interest in promoting democracy

I love how you feel that you get to define terms.

Since when is killing the talk format "promoting Democracy"?

You are just pissed off that my supposed strawmen are the logical application of a policy that you are clamoring for.

Oh, and why single out opinion and editorials?

What about how we go about deciding what does and doesn't get reported, on the public airwaves, as news?

Oh yeah, with the exception of talk radio, it's a well-documented fact that a majority of those who are in just about all other mediums are liberals and also happen to be deciding what is and isn't newsworthy. We can't have "fairness" on news reporting can we?

The public airwaves are owned by the public, and the public has the sole right to decide how those airwaves are used, not Clear Channel or Fox News or dittoheads.

And that's just too fucking bad for corporate America and their shills.

What about public universities?

I saw a stat that the ratio of liberal to conservative guest speakers is about 11-1.

Should the government step in and demand fairness at our public universities? I mean, we need a wide range of views to be heard in order to promote Democracy, don't we?

The public airwaves are owned by the public, and the public has the sole right to decide how those airwaves are used, not Clear Channel or Fox News or dittoheads.

And that's just too fucking bad for corporate America and their shills.

And we have the perfect mechanism in place for 'the public' to decide. It's called free market competition. The formats that generate listenership prevail because that is what a majority of 'the public' wants.

And that's just too fucking bad for undesirable liberal talk shows and their bitter shills.

In application, the Fairness Doctrine shuts up opinions that a tyrannical minority don't like.

It's too fucking bad for you elitist shits that formats you advocate don't resonate with 'the public'. Deal with it.

"And that's a stupid analogy. Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better. Democracy does not require that polka music fans like yourself are equally represented on the radio dial." - NULL

Do you teach your kids to respond to others like that? :^)

To your rebuttal, do you feel it's the duty of stations to dispense a variety of views? In other words, should stations be mandated to share varying opinions in order to maintain their license?

What if a station elected to steer clear of provocative opinion and simply played music or talked about gardening?

Talk radio is perhaps the only form of mass media which is truly responsive to its customers. Live opinions... unfiltered. Try that with the local newspaper or TV station - it's an entirely different ballgame.

The Internets, tubes and all, are another great forum for all views to be heard. Will you seek regulations placed upon site owners to guarantee equal time for dissenting viewpoints? If not, why not? Because the public owns the airwaves and not the Internets? OK, then what constraints, if any, would you place on cable or satellite TV & radio?

The "Fairness Doctrine" has a wonderful name... and it was put forth in a time when there were fewer stations and fewer TV options. We now have information overload. There is no practical need for the Fairness Doctrine and it would be supremely difficult to police/enforce.

tyrannical minority doesn't like.

"Since when is killing the talk format "promoting Democracy"?

Since when is a choice between Hannity and Limbaugh, between Boortz and Beck and Ingraham and Savage and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

Corporate control of the public airwaves is only in the interests of corporations, not democracy, not the public.

I just don't see what's wrong with the EIB, the Excrement in Broadcasting network.

"It's called free market competition. "

Horseshit. The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations. Free market my ass.

....and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

LOL

HUGE ISSUES.

I don't particularly care for them either but I don't want to shut them up either.

you do

Since when is a choice between Hannity and Limbaugh, between Boortz and Beck and Ingraham and Savage and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

Given that it's what 'the people' want, I'd say it's a very intelligent use of the public's resources.

Corporate control of the public airwaves is only in the interests of corporations, not democracy, not the public.

Bullshit. Corporate control means they have to compete for listenership. If they don't play what the 'the public' wants to hear, they lose out to a competitor that does. The process is the very essence of Democracy and it most certainly serves the interests of 'the public' - what the public wants to hear is what gets airtime.

What you want obviously isn't what 'the public' wants.

Tough shit.

"It's too fucking bad for you elitist shits that formats you advocate don't resonate with 'the public'. Deal with it."

Too bad the Fairness Doctrine is coming back and you rightwing shitstains will lose your monopoly. Tough shit.

The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations. Free market my ass.

Look, I agree that is concerning but let me ask you something.....has Air America been somehow affected by that? Has their acceptance or success/failure been impacted by the fact that the broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations?

Horseshit. The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations. Free market my ass.

I have a lot more patience for the argument against media consolidation.

And yes, it still is a free market, your conspiratorial rants notwithstanding.

I don't care if the broadcast media market was owned by 2 corporations, if they aren't playing what 'the public' wants to hear, they won't have listenership and thus advertising revenues.

In broadcast media, ratings rule the roost, much to your chagrin.

Too bad the Fairness Doctrine is coming back and you rightwing shitstains will lose your monopoly. Tough shit.

Monopoly my ass.

Create a format that the public wants and you'd have an audience too.

I love when petty tyrants celebrate the government censorship of opinions they disagree with.

Making diverse views accessible is the issue.

They are accessible. Can you give an example of anyone being denied an FCC license because of they were left? Has a station ever had its license revoked because of its views?

It's not up to the government to ensure that losing stations that can't hold listeners get their message out.

"Please also understand that the airwaves are not private they are public, not unlike say a public sidewalk. Is any of this sinking in?" -- Posted by Salaryman

I am glad you brought up the whole "public place" thing, especially with the public sidewalk analogy.

On a public sidewalk I can (without restriction by the government):

a) tell the truth
b) tell a lie
c) give my opinion

On a public sidewalk I do NOT however, have to find someone to rebut me before I am allowed to speak.

Since you brought up the sidewalk as a supporting analogy for your position on this subject, I figured I would point out that it really doesn't support your position at all.

The term "public" is not synonymous with censorship or dictatorial regulation. The First Amendment as a, matter of fact, limits the government... not us.

"I don't particularly care for them either but I don't want to shut them up either.

you do"

I don't want to shut up anybody, Eberly. I'd like to see a hundred points of view from far left to far right. Now there is only one point of view, the HannityLimBaughIngraham, etc., point of view.

Oh, and Bill....

Don't celebrate too soon.

Talk radio is very popular and a resurrection of the Censorship Doctrine will be much harder than you think.

When the letters and petitions come into Congress by the tens of millions you can bet that even your beloved Democratic tyrants will think twice before royally pissing off their constituency.

If it's tried and fails as a result of the backlash, I will laugh awfully hard at all of you petty tyrants trying to squelch opinion that you disagree with.

Since when is a choice between Hannity and Limbaugh, between Boortz and Beck and Ingraham and Savage and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

I personally don't feel it is. I agree with you there. That's why I don't listen to them. But I will not be so arrogant as to sit here and tell anyone else they do not have the right to listen to people whom I consider to be idiots. NOr will I tell them that they have to listen to an opposing view if they don't want to. That's none of my fucking business who people want or not want to listen to.

I don't want to shut up anybody, Eberly. I'd like to see a hundred points of view from far left to far right. Now there is only one point of view, the HannityLimBaughIngraham, etc., point of view.

I believe you.

However, your mechanism for achieving this (FD) when applied has the effect of killing talk radio and shutting up Conservative opinion.

The fact is, we have more divergent views available to us than ever before. You simply don't need to squelch the conservative talk format in order to achieve 'fairness'.

I don't want to shut up anybody, Eberly.

From the article..

Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

That itself might be paranoia and I will freely admit that I don't know how it would play out so I am not exactly concerned about it.

The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations.

And they force people to tune in and listen so that they can tell the advertisers they have the ratings needed to justify their ad rates.

LOL

That's why I don't listen to them.

Excellent solution!!!!

Works for me. I haven't listened to any of them for some time.

"I don't care if the broadcast media market was owned by 2 corporations,"

Of course you don't.

It's one thing to have a "free market" in toothpaste.

It's quite another thing, to apply that to the media by which citizens in a democratic society get the information necessary to make informed decisions and informed votes.

So another over reach by the Congress.

I suggest sending email now to your congress person to vote this bill down.

Another way to quelch free speech and free markets.

If Air America would do a better job--none of this would be occurring.

I'd like to see a hundred points of view from far left to far right.

Then contact the people you want to listen to and encourage them to get a radio station.

Actually, Null, you don't want to hear these points of view yourself -- you want to force everyone to listen to them. It's very similiar, if not identical to the prayer in school issue. No one can stop kids from praying in school. But the fundies want forced prayer in school. It's not for the benefit of their kids, but to expose other kids to prayer. Your stance on the fairness doctrine is identical. You can find your points of view if you want. But you want them forced on others.

Bill,

You are conveniently ignoring a lot of points being made and are simply spouting the same rhetoric about citizens in a democratic society getting the information necessary to participate in the process.

You have yet to demonstrate in any way how FD accomplishes this (it doesn't). In fact, all it does is shut up Conservative talk.

"And they force people to tune in and listen so that they can tell the advertisers they have the ratings needed to justify their ad rates.

LOL"

I guess your point is that media monopolies are good, correct? The fewer the number of corporations that own the media, the better for democracy, right?

My point of view is that anyone with a radio show that people want to listen to can get it aired. If it is good enough, people will listen. If it's not, it'll die.

My POV could not be simpler.

"Actually, Null, you don't want to hear these points of view yourself -- you want to force everyone to listen to them. "

Don't tell me what I want. I'll tell you what I want. I want for myself, and for any other citizen, to have easy access to a wide diversity of views, not the RushHannityIngrahamSavage point of view.

I guess you're happy with having only one choice on the radio.

I guess your point is that media monopolies are good, correct?

Null, you've used the word 'strawman' more than anyone on this thread.

Now show me where I've even come close to suggesting that media monopolies are good. When you can't, look in the mirror at the real strawman.

I'll tell you what I want

I know. You've made it clear that you want everyone to listen to all points of view, which you said you want to listen to.

So I stand by my statement. YOu want everyone to listen to what you want listen to.

I guess you're happy with having only one choice on the radio.

You are having a very difficult time grokking what I am happy with. Being a nice guy, I'll repeat it one more time. If you still can't get it, I can't help.

I am happy with letting market forces dictate what is on the radio.

Get it?

"I am happy with letting market forces dictate what is on the radio.

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

"I want for myself, and for any other citizen, to have easy access to a wide diversity of views, not the RushHannityIngrahamSavage point of view." - NULL

That certainly makes sense. Let's take that a step further. Where do you live? In our area there are MANY stations I can receive in my home and vehicle... many. Easily 30 or more. I live in the Winston-Salem/Greensboro area.

Rush is on one of those stations. One. Rush isn't on two stations in any market that I'm aware of.

So even if only a handful of entities own stations there is a plethora of options on the dial.

Then you have to ask yourself why, of all those stations out there, none happen to air content you'd like to hear. Are you seriously going to suggest that if there was a market for a counter balance to Rush that stations wouldn't jump on that bandwagon? Surely, with stations switching formats as they do, you'd think someone, somewhere, would find liberal talk radio a money maker... wouldn't you?

That lib radio hasn't taken off isn't so much a result of consolidation as it is that, simply, lib radio isn't a ratings winner in most areas where it's been tried. And, just like with most anything else, people like to copy a winner. Conservative talk is a winner in most every market it's tried, so more and more stations want to jump on that bandwagon.

Thankfully for libs or those seeking alternate viewpoints, there is the NPR out there and some stations who air opposing views.

But back to a point I made earlier - talk radio is a live entity which is closely tied to its listenershp... unlike TV/newspapers. It works. It's successful. It makes money. People listen in droves.

It's quite another thing, to apply that to the media by which citizens in a democratic society get the information necessary to make informed decisions and informed votes.
Posted by nullifidian

Null: You say "media" but I think you mean "right-wing radio." Newsflash: people have many media outlets from which to obtain information and cross-check the facts. Most people do it all the time.

I don't listen to Rush or Franken but I sure as hell don't want either of them muzzled in any way.

Take a deep breath, sit down.

"Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves." - NULL

So let's say we do away with the free market. NULL is now in charge. How do you sort through the policing of all the stations?

Or, given the pre-doctrine times, are you satisfied if stations pull back from talk radio and AM stations go back to their doomed food recipes and consumer tips programming? Boring. Providing equal time meant NO TIME for anything which could get you in trouble. Is that what you desire, because that's the unintended consequence of your action?

I was there in those times. AM was dying. FM had taken over for music. Car radios all had FM capabilities.

I say let the marketplace of ideas determine which viewpoints are discussed. We have a right to speak, but not to be heard. Demonstrate your views are able to hold an audience and you'll prosper.

We have so many outlets these days that politicians trying to place restrictions will come across as the bad guys. You know it and I know it. It'll be a losing proposition and something I doubt Obama will support, at least given what I've read about it lately.

"I am happy with letting market forces dictate what is on the radio.

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

Null,

I am sure you just weren't thinking about your choice of words, and you probably didn't mean this the way it came out... but your above statement came across about as intelligent as a back-woods West Virginia hick. Or to put it another way, about as intelligent as libs tend to portray GWB.

Democracy IS government by the people. That is to say, the people decide the government's job.

The Market as referenced in "free market" IS simply demand for a particular product. Who decides demand? The people do.

Democracy and the market are synonymous. Both are determined by the people and what the people want.

In light of this, your statement actually reads:

"How the people want to be governed is too important to be decided by what the people want."

That is just sheer idiocy, but again, I am pretty sure you didn't mean to say what you actually said.

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

You have still yet to show how killing talk radio (conservative and to a much smaller extent liberal talk) is good for Democracy. This is what FD does when applied. I've pointed this out several times yet you continue to run from it.

Democracy?

Since when does putting the interests of the Democratic party above public interest promoting Democracy?

Lastly, here in the Metro Detroit area from noon to 3 we have Rush on AM760 and we have Thom Hartmann (a devout liberal) on AM1310. That's the essence of FD in a free market minus all of the draconian government measures.

Also, in the information age people have easy access to a myriad of opinion. Again, you don't need to kill conservative talk.

Howard Stern went off to satellite radio, but I think he was possibly the one real Limbaugh analog on the Left.

His trouble: unlike Rush (admittedly an obnoxious blowhard) Howard couldn't resist his inner 14-year-old and just had to push the decency limits all the time. But from a political standpoint he could be pretty serious and insightful. When he wasn't ogling somebody's tits.

The only guy now who seems as clever and/or popular is probably Jon Stewart but he's on cable TV and not Radio. HEY there's an idea!

There's your free market, Null. (And I want a % commission for my idea, should Stewart open a Rush-like radio show.)

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-26 05:58 PM

Null--I know you are smarter than this statement.

You are talking about China-type gov't run radio.

Some gov't gas bag deciding what is allowed to be heard on the radio--or any medium for that matter.

Do you really mean what you posted?

Democracy is the people and free markets go hand in hand.

"I am sure you just weren't thinking about your choice of words, and you probably didn't mean this the way it came out... but your above statement came across about as intelligent as a back-woods West Virginia hick."

Fuck off, you condescending jackass.

"Democracy and the market are synonymous."

Total horseshit. This is the crap that free market fundies are always trying to bamboozle people with. Free markets lead to monopolized markets. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"You are talking about China-type gov't run radio."

You're an idiot, Murphy. Talk about blowing straw!

Some gov't gas bag deciding what is allowed to be heard on the radio--or any medium for that matter.
Posted by MURPHY

We could get Bruno Kirby from "Good Morning Vietnam." He actually did require polkas to be played and was into all kinda censorship.

NULL -
Again, where you live,,, how many AM & FM stations can you pick up?

"Democracy is the people and free markets go hand in hand."

Free markets in commodities like toothpaste have nothing to do with democracy, unless you think democracy means "one dollar, one vote."