Split Thread "Fairness doctrine" broadcasting

[applecorped]

Are radio talk shows such as Rush & Savage considered entertainment (in general, not personally)?

 

[Elvis666]

I would ask how you Conservatives would feel about it if every major broadcast network and 80% of all radio outlets were in the hands of Democrats who had no incentive to either sell stations to you or to allow your side any access to the public airwaves?

I look forward to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter's new call-in shows on National Public Radio.

 

[Drysdale]

The fact remains that the RF spectrum is a Commons. If we allowed it to be unregulated, then nobody would ever be able to hear anybody because of course there would be a "arms race" to build the most powerful transmitter.

Now, given that, we have to regulate it. And since we cannot just allow some person with a unrepresented political opinion to set up a broadcast station, spectrum and hence licenses being finite, we need to make sure that opinion, if it represents a sizable fraction of the country, can be heard.

I would ask how you Conservatives would feel about it if every major broadcast network and 80% of all radio outlets were in the hands of Democrats who had no incentive to either sell stations to you or to allow your side any access to the public airwaves?

I am damned sure that you would be raising a hue and cry of epic proportions.

After the lopsided election coverage for Obama this year you are implying they are'nt already? Do you watch TV or read the major newspapers with any objectivity at all?

 

[Whiplash]

More thoughts on the "analogy" of obscenity filter vs political filters.


Why does the JREF forum have an obscenity filter?

Why indeed do most internet forums and games have some kind of chat filter?


Now how many of these same places have similar filters for political content? Enforcing a fair/balanced perspective? Enforcing equal time for both sides point of view?

The two things are not analogous at all. One is about decency or moral codes or whatever the hell it's about, and is common throughout our country. The latter is not even in the same ballpark.

 

[gtc]

Again I will point out that kiddie porn is illegal outside of any FCC policy.

This is what you wrote:

You can't complain about restricting free speech in one case, and then endorse the restriction of free speech in another.

Well, you can, but that would be hypocritical.

Nothing in there about it only being hypocritical if the restrictions are applied only by the FCC.

But lets accept that you meant to add something about the FCC.

Why is it hypocritical to support one FCC restriction but not another FCC restriction?

Are you saying it would not, necessarily, be hypocritical to support one non-FCC restriction on free speech but to oppose a FCC restriction? If so, why?

I have a hard time accepting that hard core pornography should be aired on a children's TV show but have no difficulty thinking it is ridiculous to try to force radio to somehow represent every single person's political views equally (unless the FCC hands out 300 million extremely short range radio transmitters).

 

[Cleon]

More thoughts on the "analogy" of obscenity filter vs political filters.


Why does the JREF forum have an obscenity filter?

Why indeed do most internet forums and games have some kind of chat filter?

And what does this have to do with an FCC policy? The analogy there would be to local stations choosing whether to have their own policies on "obscenity." I have no problem with that.

Now, if ICANN decides that Internet sites may not contain the Seven Words You Can't Say on Television, I have a serious problem with that.

The problem I have is an unelected agency dictating what may or may not be said over the air.

Apparently you who have no problem picking and choosing when to support free expression, and when not to.

 

[Cleon]

Are you saying it would not, necessarily, be hypocritical to support one non-FCC restriction on free speech but to oppose a FCC restriction? If so, why?

Cleon's rule of internet forums:

If someone starts a question with "are you saying that..." what follows is inevitably a strawman.

I have a hard time accepting that hard core pornography should be aired on a children's TV show

What on God's green earth makes you think it would be?

I really don't understand why you keep bringing this nonsense up. Do you seriously believe that if the FCC stops regulating broadcast content we're going to start seeing orgies on Sesame Street?

 

[gtc]

Cleon's rule of internet forums:

If someone starts a question with "are you saying that..." what follows is inevitably a strawman.

It was an effing question not a strawman. It seemed that it could be what your answer implied, but I wasn't sure. Which is why I asked a question.

The fact that you have tried to change your original comment by claiming that you were only talking about FCC restrictions, the fact that you have repeatedly refused to explain why it is hypocritical and the fact that you changed the topic to some BS rule suggests that (at best) you either can't explain or that you had no basis for your original claim.

What on God's green earth makes you think it would be?

Nothing in particular. There is some anecdotal evidence about Brazillian TV after they ousted their last dictator and that whole supply and demand thing that you seem to find so hard to grasp suggests that if it is more profitable to show hard core porn than children's shows that this is what will happen.

I really don't understand why you keep bringing this nonsense up. Do you seriously believe that if the FCC stops regulating broadcast content we're going to start seeing orgies on Sesame Street?

Hey. You were right about your rule, only it applies to your posts. Not anyone else's.

The simple fact of the matter is this. I see no problem with mandating that channels that use limited spectrum present so many hours of children's programing or so many hours of news or so many hours of local production. I do not think that it is a good idea to mandate that political views or any other views be given equal air time. I also think that when digital broadcasting takes off and spectrum is no longer the limiting factor, such limits should be removed.

According to you, that is hypocritical. You have repeatedly failed to explain why.

 

[dudalb]

I would prefer a return to restrictions over how many frequencies a single company can own in the same market.

Agreed.


What is scary about the Fairness Doctrine is that it supporters are not even concealing that forcing right wing radio off the air is why the want it back.
People as blindly partisan as Ben Burch scare the hell out of me.His equivilents on the right scare me just as much as Ben does. And if "Protecting The Commons" means taking away basic rights,, then The Hell With The Commons.

 

[BenBurch]

The Commons *is* a basic right. I no more want to force right wing radio off the air than I want to force morning shock jocks off the air. I detest both of them pretty much equally, but there is room for them on the airwaves. And I am deeply offended by that false characterization. What there is not room for is single-party control of the airwaves.

Hitler had that.

The Volksempfänger was designed to make sure that ONLY local and strong stations could be heard so that Germans would not have to trouble themselves with hearing the BBC or any other non-Nazi source of information. In fact he ultimately made listening to foreign broadcasts illegal, and in occupied territories there was a massive program to seize all radios.

That is what you get when you allow a single political party to control the dissemination of information - you ensure that all information is propaganda.

And yes, a fairness doctrine would ensure the end of the "Liberal Radio Station" because it applies to all, but I don't think anybody wants a world in which only the Left provides information without responsible opposing points of view any more than they want a world where only the Right does.

 

[Puppycow]

What does that have to do with the FCC?

What does the FCC have to do with the price of tea in China?

ETA: You claimed that it would be "hypocritical" to simultaneously oppose the "fairness doctrine" and favor not allowing hard porn on public airwaves, right?

 

[tomwaits]

The Commons *is* a basic right. I no more want to force right wing radio off the air than I want to force morning shock jocks off the air. I detest both of them pretty much equally, but there is room for them on the airwaves. And I am deeply offended by that false characterization. What there is not room for is single-party control of the airwaves.

Hitler had that.

The Volksempfänger was designed to make sure that ONLY local and strong stations could be heard so that Germans would not have to trouble themselves with hearing the BBC or any other non-Nazi source of information. In fact he ultimately made listening to foreign broadcasts illegal, and in occupied territories there was a massive program to seize all radios.

That is what you get when you allow a single political party to control the dissemination of information - you ensure that all information is propaganda.

And yes, a fairness doctrine would ensure the end of the "Liberal Radio Station" because it applies to all, but I don't think anybody wants a world in which only the Left provides information without responsible opposing points of view any more than they want a world where only the Right does.

Wow, Godwin times 30. The problems with this post are so obvious I can't believe you typed it with a straight face. Namely: nobody is forcing radio stations to carry right wing talk shows except the listeners themselves. To try to pretend this is some kind of Nazi-esque scheme is laughable.

 

[BenBurch]

Wow, Godwin times 30. The problems with this post are so obvious I can't believe you typed it with a straight face. Namely: nobody is forcing radio stations to carry right wing talk shows except the listeners themselves. To try to pretend this is some kind of Nazi-esque scheme is laughable.

No, listeners largely have no say in the matter, first, and second how do you prevent a complete takeover of one point of view without a fairness doctrine?

I'm not saying we have a single voice only now, but we could.

And it is as likely to come from the Left as from the Right.

 

[tomwaits]

No, listeners largely have no say in the matter

Umm..what?? What do you think the point is of even having a radio station? Do you know what a business is?

how do you prevent a complete takeover of one point of view without a fairness doctrine?

You don't. That's the point. You go with what the listeners demand. Currently, the main market for talk radio is conservative listeners.

 

[tomwaits]

No, listeners largely have no say in the matter, first, and second how do you prevent a complete takeover of one point of view without a fairness doctrine?

The more I read this the more I am lost at what you are trying to say here. The whole reason people have suggested a return to a fairness doctrine is because the grand majority of talk show listeners are conservatives. Left wing radio generally doesn't sell. It's really not that complicated.

 

[gtc]

The Commons *is* a basic right. I no more want to force right wing radio off the air than I want to force morning shock jocks off the air. I detest both of them pretty much equally, but there is room for them on the airwaves. And I am deeply offended by that false characterization. What there is not room for is single-party control of the airwaves.

Unless you expand the number of radio stations in a market, there is no way that you can get more hours devoted to liberal radio shows on the air unless you have fewer hours devoted to other radio shows.

Hitler had that.

Your surname has the same number of letters as Hitler's first name. We try not to hold that against you though.

 

[tomwaits]

Oh, and one more thing...

The Commons *is* a basic right. I no more want to force right wing radio off the air than I want to force morning shock jocks off the air. I detest both of them pretty much equally, but there is room for them on the airwaves. And I am deeply offended by that false characterization. What there is not room for is single-party control of the airwaves.

Hitler had that.

The Volksempfänger was designed to make sure that ONLY local and strong stations could be heard so that Germans would not have to trouble themselves with hearing the BBC or any other non-Nazi source of information. In fact he ultimately made listening to foreign broadcasts illegal, and in occupied territories there was a massive program to seize all radios.

That is what you get when you allow a single political party to control the dissemination of information - you ensure that all information is propaganda.

And yes, a fairness doctrine would ensure the end of the "Liberal Radio Station" because it applies to all, but I don't think anybody wants a world in which only the Left provides information without responsible opposing points of view any more than they want a world where only the Right does.

 

[Cobalt]

No, listeners largely have no say in the matter, first, and second how do you prevent a complete takeover of one point of view without a fairness doctrine?

Did you miss this? I'll bold a relevant part for you.

But why? Why the hell does it matter if it's on the radio or not? If someone wants an opinion, there's a plethora of blogs, sites and whatnot that will assuredly cover the range of opinions. Nevermind the fact that people are listening to conservative radio because they want to, even if they hate the show in question. Why has liberal talk radio largely been a failure if it had opinions that "represent a sizable fraction of the country" that people wanted to hear?

Where's the demand for legislation to offer equal word counts in print media for "underrepresented political opinions?"

Do you know what a talk radio hosts job truly is? It's to say enough to keep people tuned in so the station can play commercials. Conservative talk radio accomplishes this. History's shown that liberal talk radio doesn't.

 

[BeAChooser]

*sigh* The Fairness Doctrine is an FCC thing. As such, print media would not be affected.

But if *fairness* is all that important ... perhaps we should extend it to all media ... including Hollywood movies and mainstream papers. Why not? We are doing it out of "fairness", right? And fairness is a good thing, right?

Of course this entire discussion should be moot since in June of this year an Obama press secretary stated that Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine. But who knows ...

 

[RandFan]

I'm not a fan of the Fairness Doctrine. It creates an incentive to supply shallow content solely for the purposes of compliance.

"And now, to fulfill our equal time requirements, here's Mort Dingleweenie to explain why we have to spread the wealth around and have government take over healthcare."

I would prefer a return to restrictions over how many frequencies a single company can own in the same market.

I approve of this post. As if my opinion is of any value.

I couldn't agree more.