Split Thread "Fairness doctrine" broadcasting

[tomwaits]

????

Please let me clarify that I in no way support the Fairness doctrine. Please do not lump me in with BB, ever.

Haha, sorry. I misread your initial post:

I'm sure the fairness doctrine will take care of that.

 

[applecorped]

Boy, you sure showed me...Something. I'm not sure what, but you sure showed me!

Someone had to.

 

[applecorped]

Haha, sorry. I misread your initial post:

No problem.

 

[Cleon]

Obama may be against it, but Pelosi and Reid have both publicly supported it (and of course, Ben Burch and applecorped seem to support it in this very thread). The fact that the House and Senate majority leaders support it would understandably give some cause for alarm.

First, in fairness (har!), applecorped is not supporting the Fairness Doctrine by any means. Unless I'm reading his posts wrong. But I don't think that I am.

Second, they've said they'd support it when they were asked, but again, they've made no serious push for it in the 2-3 years they've had control. I don't see a change on that front as likely, with Obama coming in.

...and destroy all the revenue to the radio stations in the process.

What, all of it? People would stop listening to the radio because Limbaugh wasn't on?

That seems a wee bit of an exaggeration.

You seem to think that this would only hurt the "poor, downtrodden, oppressed right-wing wackos".

No, but they seem to be the ones making a fuss over it. Left-wing stations and networks, like Pacifica and WRFG, to say nothing of Amy Goodman, would also be affected by the Fairness Doctrine, but you don't see them overly bothered.

Why do you think all the talk stations fight over who gets to play Rush? Is it because they are all part of the right wing media? Or is it because he's the most listened to radio show in America?

A little bit of both, really. I have no doubt there's a clear profit motive; people like Limbaugh bring in the ears, and the ears bring in advertising revenue. At the same time, there is similarly little doubt in my mind that many of the larger broadcasting networks (Clear Channel comes to mind) have a definite political agenda that they enjoy promoting.

 

[Cleon]

Right wing talk = obscene speech.

Didn't say that. (Though in some cases, kinda, yeah. Michael Savage comes to mind.)

What I asked was, "could someone explain to me why the Fairness Doctrine would be any more hostile to freedom of speech than the current rules prohibiting 'obscene' speech?"

I take it that you cannot.

 

[tomwaits]

First, in fairness (har!), applecorped is not supporting the Fairness Doctrine by any means. Unless I'm reading his posts wrong. But I don't think that I am.

Second, they've said they'd support it when they were asked, but again, they've made no serious push for it in the 2-3 years they've had control. I don't see a change on that front as likely, with Obama coming in.

Yes, it probably is unlikely, but you can understand why they would get upset.

What, all of it? People would stop listening to the radio because Limbaugh wasn't on?

That seems a wee bit of an exaggeration.

Certainly a very significant portion. Top five according to Arbitron:

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Sean Hannity
3. Michael Savage / Dr. Laura
4. Glenn Beck
5. Laura Ingraham / Mark Levin

It doesn't take a genius to realize that conversatives flourish in talk radio. Maybe left wingers listen to music instead of talk, I don't know. Air America's financial woes certainly show how hard it is for left-wing radio to get listeners.

No, but they seem to be the ones making a fuss over it. Left-wing stations and networks, like Pacifica and WRFG, to say nothing of Amy Goodman, would also be affected by the Fairness Doctrine, but you don't see them overly bothered.

Because, as I said above, left wingers could only benefit from it. Radio is dominated by right wing personalities. What could left wingers have to fear from such a law?

A little bit of both, really. I have no doubt there's a clear profit motive; people like Limbaugh bring in the ears, and the ears bring in advertising revenue. At the same time, there is similarly little doubt in my mind that many of the larger broadcasting networks (Clear Channel comes to mind) have a definite political agenda that they enjoy promoting.

I am highly skeptical of this right-wing conspiracy you allege. Clear Channel only cares about one thing: profit. Right wing talk shows bring the most profit by far, therefore that's what dominates the market.

 

[applecorped]

Didn't say that. (Though in some cases, kinda, yeah. Michael Savage comes to mind.)

So right wing radio is obscene to you in some cases.

What I asked was, "could someone explain to me why the Fairness Doctrine would be any more hostile to freedom of speech than the current rules prohibiting 'obscene' speech?"

I take it that you cannot.

Take it any way you choose. I know, you're just asking questions.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, it probably is unlikely, but you can understand why they would get upset.

Well, I think it's more to get the gander of their listeners.

Because, as I said above, left wingers could only benefit from it. Radio is dominated by right wing personalities. What could left wingers have to fear from such a law?

Under a Fairness Doctrine, left-wing networks and stations (like WRFG, Pacifica, etc) would be forced to cater to right-wing interests, as right-wing stations and networks would be forced to cater to left-wing interests.

I am highly skeptical of this right-wing conspiracy you allege. Clear Channel only cares about one thing: profit. Right wing talk shows bring the most profit by far, therefore that's what dominates the market.

Be as skeptical as you like. Clear Channel's support for the Bush Administration was not something they've ever really hidden. Under their own name, they sponsored quite a few pro-war "support the troops" rallies in response to the huge anti-war demonstrations that were going on in DC in 2003-2004.

 

[Upchurch]

Could someone explain to me why the Fairness Doctrine would be any more hostile to freedom of speech than the current rules prohibiting "obscene" speech?

Right wing talk = obscene speech.

Er... applecorped, that clearly wasn't what Cleon was saying.

He's noting that there are already restrictions on the freedom of speech vis-à-vis rules prohibiting obscene speech (i.e. dropping the f-bomb on air). He wasn't equating right wing talk to the f-bomb. He was asking how one set of restrictions are okay but another is not.

 

[Cleon]

So right wing radio is obscene to you in some cases.

Yep. When G. Gordon Liddy gives viewers instructions on shooting federal agents, that's obscene. When Michael Savage wishes gay people would get AIDS and die, that's obscene.

I would hope you feel the same way.

Take it any way you choose. I know, you're just asking questions.

In what way is it not a legitimate point? Either it's ok for the FCC to regulate speech over the airwaves, or it isn't.

 

[applecorped]

Er... applecorped, that clearly wasn't what Cleon was saying.

He's noting that there are already restrictions on the freedom of speech vis-à-vis rules prohibiting obscene speech (i.e. dropping the f-bomb on air). He wasn't equating right wing talk to the f-bomb. He was asking how one set of restrictions are okay but another is not.

So, by your question above you liken the Fairness Doctrine to a restriction? A restriction of what?

If one set of restrictions are okay and in place to deal with obscenity (which cleon likens some conservative talk radio to) then what exactly would be the purpose of another set of restrictions? The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with curbing obscene speech and all to do with trying to artificially level the playing field for Liberal talk radio so it can compete.

 

[applecorped]

Yep. When G. Gordon Liddy gives viewers instructions on shooting federal agents, that's obscene. When Michael Savage wishes gay people would get AIDS and die, that's obscene.

I would hope you feel the same way.

????No I'm all for shooting agents and gay people getting aids.

Seriously, what does that have to do with forcing radio stations to air content that they have determined is not profitable for them?

 

[Cleon]

????No I'm all for shooting agents and gay people getting aids.

Seriously, what does that have to do with forcing radio stations to air content that they have determined is not profitable for them?

I haven't the foggiest idea. You're the one who made an issue out of whether I think right-wing radio is obscene in some cases. Well, apparently you do too. So tell me, what does it have to do with anything?


But back on topic...If it's ok for the FCC to fine CBS when Janet Jackson let slip the nip, why isn't it ok to fine stations who don't provide diverse opinions? At least in the latter case, it's something the station actually has control over.

As I said...Either the FCC should have the authority to restrict speech over the airwaves, or they shouldn't. The moment you start picking and choosing, you've missed the boat on what "freedom of speech" is all about.

 

[applecorped]

I haven't the foggiest idea. You're the one who made an issue out of whether I think right-wing radio is obscene in some cases. Well, apparently you do too. So tell me, what does it have to do with anything?


But back on topic...If it's ok for the FCC to fine CBS when Janet Jackson let slip the nip, why isn't it ok to fine stations who don't provide diverse opinions? At least in the latter case, it's something the station actually has control over.

As I said...Either the FCC should have the authority to restrict speech over the airwaves, or they shouldn't. The moment you start picking and choosing, you've missed the boat on what "freedom of speech" is all about.

You want to fine people for LACK of opinions?!?!?!

I'm glad I missed that boat. Unbelievable.

 

[Snide]

You want to fine people for LACK of opinions?!?!?!

I'm glad I missed that boat. Unbelievable.

You must be intentionally missing the point.

 

[Cleon]

You want to fine people for LACK of opinions?!?!?!

I'm glad I missed that boat. Unbelievable.

Sweet smurfy Jesus on a pogo stick. Look, I understand that you don't want to address the point I'm making--why, I have no idea--but your attempts to avoid the point in question are pretty clumsy.

If you don't want to address the point, just abandon the thread. Misrepresenting my posts as poorly as you are doing is really unnecessary.

 

[applecorped]

Sweet smurfy Jesus on a pogo stick. Look, I understand that you don't want to address the point I'm making--why, I have no idea--but your attempts to avoid the point in question are pretty clumsy.

If you don't want to address the point, just abandon the thread. Misrepresenting my posts as poorly as you are doing is really unnecessary.

Try again.

 

[applecorped]

You must be intentionally missing the point.

I must be?

 

[Cobalt]

I wrote about this on my blog (which I won't link to, PM me if you really feel like reading my pointless writings,) and the basic question I asked was; "What's the point of such a legislation?"

You're on the Internet right now. At any moment, if you want both sides of a given issue, you can find a plethora of available commentaries from either side.

I noted that within a Google search for "Fairness Doctrine" (no quotes) that I got two articles for and against it without even scrolling down the results page.

If people actually want to educate themselves on issues, there's more than radio to do it with.

 

[Upchurch]

So, by your question above you liken the Fairness Doctrine to a restriction? A restriction of what?

Unless I have a sock puppet that I was unaware of, I don't know what question you are referring to.

As for how the Fairness Doctrine restricts speech, I have no idea. Isn't that one of the standard anti-Fairness Doctrine arguments? By mandating certain forms of speech there is less time for the kinds of speech they want to do? Or else, it cools certain kinds of speech because they know they will have to allow time for counter arguments?

I dunno. I'm just restating Cleon's argument, which wasn't what you characterized it as.

If one set of restrictions are okay and in place to deal with obscenity (which cleon likens some conservative talk radio to)

(No, he didn't. You made that comparison with your silly straw man.)

then what exactly would be the purpose of another set of restrictions? The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with curbing obscene speech and all to do with trying to artificially level the playing field for Liberal talk radio so it can compete.

Actually, there was no liberal or conservative talk radio when the Fairness Doctrine was originally put into place. It had a purpose other than that, way back when. The idea was that a well informed electorate is necessary to a healthy democracy. It's the same reason the original three television networks were required to have news shows. (Okay, that wasn't the actually requirement, but a nightly news show is how all three decided to meet whatever the requirement was.)

Right or wrong, it was a requirement in the public's interest to broadcast on the public's airwaves.