Split Thread "Fairness doctrine" broadcasting

[applecorped]

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

Originally Posted by applecorped
Right wing talk = obscene speech.

Cleon:


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

He didn't? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Upchurch]

Cleon:

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

He didn't? You can't have it both ways.

Yeah, there is a world of difference in saying that some right wing talk is obscene and all right wing talk is obscene. Want me to break out a Venn Diagram for ya?

Cleon was referring to a particular instance of right wing talk being obscene.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, there is a world of difference in saying that some right wing talk is obscene and all right wing talk is obscene. Want me to break out a Venn Diagram for ya?

Cleon was referring to a particular instance of right wing talk being obscene.

Which, I should point out, applecorped agreed with me on.

 

[applecorped]

sigh.....so some right wing talk radio is obscene. What to do? Let the FCC do their job and levy fines when justified? Yes.

Should we force radio stations to air content not targeted to the stations intended audience to in an attempt to appear fair and balanced? No.

 

[Cleon]

sigh.....so some right wing talk radio is obscene. What to do? Let the FCC do their job and levy fines when justified? Yes.

Should we force radio stations to air content not targeted to the stations intended audience to in an attempt to appear fair and balanced? No.

So you're ok with the FCC regulating "freedom of speech" as long as it's speech you don't like.

 

[gtc]

Realistically, of course, rather than have to go through the horror of having liberal radio broadcasts, a number of stations will likely just dump talk radio altogether.

You have no idea about supply and demand, do you? Stations would broadcast left wing talk radio if it made commercial sense or, in the case of community radio (or whatever it is called in the US) if it could attract enough station sponsors and subscribers to be viable. 'Horror' doesn't come into it.

Its reality that determines that almost every radio host is to the right of you, not some conspiracy of conservatives 'horrified' at the thought of broadcasting talk shows that match your politics.

 

[mortimer]

Wait, what? There's political talk show(s) on the public radio airwaves that is "obscene"? Evidence?

Here's the FCC's definition of obscene:

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

• An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
• The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
• The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

 

[Cleon]

You have no idea about supply and demand, do you? Stations would broadcast left wing talk radio if it made commercial sense or, in the case of community radio (or whatever it is called in the US) if it could attract enough station sponsors and subscribers to be viable. 'Horror' doesn't come into it.

Its reality that determines that almost every radio host is to the right of you, not some conspiracy of conservatives 'horrified' at the thought of broadcasting talk shows that match your politics.

So, then, your theory is that under the Fairness Doctrine, they'd be happy to play liberal talk shows, as long as they could keep cranking out the Limbaugh and sucking in the conservative coin.

Yeah...I don't quite buy that.

 

[gtc]

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.

Its easy to determine if a swear word is used or a nipple is shown but assessing the diversity of political opinions is entirely subjective. Personally, I think neither should be banned.

There is also a difference between banning something for obscenity and banning something based on its political content. Being in favour of free-speech doesn't mean having to tolerate the broadcast of child porn for instance.

So you're ok with the FCC regulating "freedom of speech" as long as it's speech you don't like.

Aren't you? Are you comfortable with the broadcast of child porn or beastiality or calls for genocide?

 

[Upchurch]

sigh.....so some right wing talk radio is obscene. What to do? Let the FCC do their job and levy fines when justified? Yes.

Should we force radio stations to air content not targeted to the stations intended audience to in an attempt to appear fair and balanced? No.

Better. (Assuming you understand what is straw man and what isn't.)

However, you are still have two separate issues that you are muddying together. The FCC levies fines on instances of the f-bomb because it is against their rules. Once upon a twenty some odd years ago, the Fairness Doctrine was also one of the rules that it was their job to enforce.

So, in your first paragraph, you are arguing whether or not the FCC rules should be enforced. In your second paragraph, you are arguing what their rules should be.

The questions are:

1. Do you think the FCC should have a rule against obscenity?
2. If the FCC were to return to having a Fairness Doctrine rule, should it be enforced?

If "yes" to 1, why "yes" to this rule and "no" to the Fairness Doctrine? If "no" to 2, why "no" to this rule and "yes" to the rule against obscenity?

 

[gtc]

So, then, your theory is that under the Fairness Doctrine, they'd be happy to play liberal talk shows, as long as they could keep cranking out the Limbaugh and sucking in the conservative coin.

Yeah...I don't quite buy that.

No. My theory is that if liberal talk radio made as much money as conservative talk radio then, sooner or later, there would be succesful liberal talk radio stations.

I know you don't understand capitalism but the idea that liberal talk radio doesn't make as much money as conservative talk radio is demonstrably true when you look at the history of Air America and the other attempts to start such networks. If there was a market for these shows then Air America would have cornered the market and made a big profit. Other networks would have gone after the market or would have been bought out by people who would go after the market.

Your theory could only be true if there was some vast conspiracy of media owners who are losing out on potential profits in order to ensure conservative control of the talk shows. This conspiracy is somehow ensuring the failure of attempts to start liberal talk radio and is being aided by another vast conspiracy of every capitalist in the entire world (working on their own, in investment banks, in venture capital and private equity firms etc) who don't like money.

Isn't it simpler to assume that, while some media companies are conservative, attempts to start liberal talk radio has failed because there isn't a market for it?

 

[gtc]

The questions are:

1. Do you think the FCC should have a rule against obscenity?
2. If the FCC were to return to having a Fairness Doctrine rule, should it be enforced?

If "yes" to 1, why "yes" to this rule and "no" to the Fairness Doctrine? If "no" to 2, why "no" to this rule and "yes" to the rule against obscenity?

Those aren't the questions that this thread is about. This thread is about whether the fairness doctrine should be brought back. The obscenity rule was brought in as a slippery slope argument so it is partially relevant but the question about whether laws or regulations should be enforced is something for another topic.

 

[gnome]

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.

 

[Upchurch]

Those aren't the questions that this thread is about.

Well, no. You are correct. Those are the questions if applecorped wanted to address Cleon's post, which may or may not have anything to do with the OP.

 

[Cleon]

Its easy to determine if a swear word is used or a nipple is shown but assessing the diversity of political opinions is entirely subjective.

Oh? So curse words aren't subjective? I beg to differ...Example: Should "goddamn" be considered "obscene," or is it ok?

Personally, I think neither should be banned.

There, we agree, and it's really the only point I'm making--FCC should be for the regulation of airwaves, not the content of what's broadcast. They have no business regulating whether stations provide "equal time" any more than they have any business fining CBS for Janet's "wardrobe malfunction."

There is also a difference between banning something for obscenity and banning something based on its political content. Being in favour of free-speech doesn't mean having to tolerate the broadcast of child porn for instance.

No, but slipping the f-bomb is not in the same league as the broadcast of kiddie porn--which is already illegal, outside of any FCC policy. Were a station to actually broadcast that, the FCC penalties would be the least of their legal worries.

 

[Cleon]

The obscenity rule was brought in as a slippery slope argument

No.

 

[mortimer]

Why are we still talking about obscenity when it comes to political talk shows?

 

[Drysdale]

Off topic, but remember that a radio station does not own the frequency it is on. The PUBLIC owns that. We allow, that is license, a station to use that bit of the Commons, and they have a duty to use it in the public interest.

We mean to see to it that this happens, or the license will be stripped.

So since the public owns the TV airways also,ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,local affiliates etc received through airwaves those should be regulated also in your view?

 

[Cleon]

So since the public owns the TV airways also,ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,local affiliates etc received through airwaves those should be regulated also in your view?

The FCC has much jurisdiction over them as it has over the radio networks, so the Fairness Doctrine would apply to them as well. The FCC's jurisdiction over cable is somewhat of a fuzzy area, and cable generally doesn't fall under their regulatory oversight, so Fox News would probably be unaffected.

 

[Whiplash]

Why are we still talking about obscenity when it comes to political talk shows?

Because, somehow, in the minds of a few here, restricting radio from having swear words and other vulgar or obscene content is exactly the same as imposing a restriction on radio stations that they have to have equal time of differing opinions.. even though Cleon adamantly denies he is saying they are the same thing.

This is mind boggling. It's always odd to watch people try to find a way to rationalize a position that fits into their sides line of thinking, even though they know it's indefensible.

The idea that keeping vulgar and obscene lanugage off of the airwaves (which are publically available to all, even children) is the same line of thinking as restricting talk show opinions in any way is so crazy I don't know where to start. But again, Cleon and Upchurch insist that is not what is being said. But that is absolutely what is being said.