# The "Fairness Doctrine"



## Monadnock (Jul 21, 2007)

"Free speech is a constitutional doctrine; using the power of government to mandate political "fairness" is a socialist doctrine."




> The so-called Fairness Doctrine is openly touted as a way to squelch conservative's market-driven dominance of talk radio. For example, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma reports overhearing a conversation between Senators *Hilary Clinton* (NY) and Barbara Boxer (CA). The two Senators were complaining about conservatives' success in the free market of ideas on radio and said "We've got to have a balance. There's got to be a legislative fix for this."
> 
> The UnFairness Doctrine is on its face an attack on free speech. Were folks like Senators Clinton and Boxer truly interested in balance, they would want to extend their UnFairness Doctrine to the Public Broadcasting System and the network news programs, almost all of which tilt to the left.
> The anti-free speech forces in Congress may want to gag talk radio because Air America has staggered into bankruptcy. Air America, which was the lefts failed attempt to compete with conservative talk radio, has almost no audience. It got its clock cleaned and has only itself to blame. It should not be allowed to hide behind a phony "Fairness Doctrine."


 
http://www.gunowners.org/a072007.htm


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2007)

At a rough guess I'm assuming you think being a socialist IS NOT A GOOD THING. 

I'd also assume you don't know what a socialist is to use the word this way.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> At a rough guess I'm assuming you think being a socialist IS NOT A GOOD THING.


 
yyyyyyUP.



> I'd also assume you don't know what a socialist is to use the word this way.


 
Well, to us it means the same as a communist( We are built on the premise that what someone earns is theirs, and not the government's to distribute "equally" and to some more equally than others, by their whim.


What does socialist mean to you? Is it different there?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2007)

Yes it means something different, not communist at all. The UK has a Socialist government, Tony Blair the ex Prime Minister and Gordon Brown our current one are both Socialists. Many in Europe are Christian Socialists. These are popular political parties in Europe and far from what you think of as communist.

To argue that something restrictive or non democratic makes it communist isn't correct anyway, you only acqaint communism with being non democratic because of the awful regimes in the USSR and China.  In fact communism is no better or worse than any other type of government. If a tyrant is in charge it doesn't matter what you call the political system. True communism would be not having a government but everything, possessions, decisions money etc being shared by the people not as you describe.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 21, 2007)

Well there's our answer as to why the wires get crossed then.

But yeah, an elected legislature can trample a person's rights as easily as a monarch can.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> At a rough guess I'm assuming you think being a socialist IS NOT A GOOD THING.


 
Too far left or right is not a good thing. That's called extremism.



Tez3 said:


> I'd also assume you don't know what a socialist is to use the word this way.


 
That wasn't my quote, but I think the author knows quite well what the word means. But feel free to enlighten us all with your definition.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> In fact communism is no better or worse than any other type of government.


 
Are you serious????


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 21, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> Too far left or right is not a good thing. That's called extremism.


 
And that's the other big thing. 

Both sides over here are far too polarized, but like it that way to keep people divided and hating the others, and being the sheep they are, most of the people lap it right up and don't look up at what else might be going on behind it.

Like little scurrying ants, going about their tiny concerns, unmindful of the foot poised to crush them.

Make me want to scream they're all so ****in' stupid.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 21, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> And that's the other big thing.
> 
> Both sides over here are far too polarized, but like it that way to keep people divided and hating the others, and being the sheep they are, most of the people lap it right up and don't look up at what else might be going on behind it.
> 
> ...


 
*** BIG INHALE ***

You know, I think you're on to something. My own little conspiracy theory is that there are greater powers beyond the 2 parties that have us squabbling over left and right. Meanwhile it doesn't matter much who is control, they find ways to pass legislation to further enslave us.

It is time to end big government.

*** EXHALE ***

*** Offers to next person ***


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> Are you serious????


 

Yes, you equate communism with the dictatorships in the USSR and China whuch was no more communist than you are. In reality communism is too idealistic to actually survive long.Communism is basically, ALL the peole taking ALL of the governmental decisions, everybody owning ALL the national assets and everyone having the same amount of money, property etc. The only one of those things that works is the people owning all the national assets. In Europe in many countries the people own the railways, the utility companies, the airlines, the museums, the hospitals, bus companies etc.The rest is a utopian dream.

The USSR and it's satellite countries along with China were no different than the Fascist staes of Hitlers Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and China, they were dictatorships who said they were communist states.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> *** BIG INHALE ***
> 
> You know, I think you're on to something. My own little conspiracy theory is that there are greater powers beyond the 2 parties that have us squabbling over left and right. Meanwhile it doesn't matter much who is control, they find ways to pass legislation to further enslave us.
> 
> ...


 
End big government, rule yourselves? ah communism! Ok If you don't like that label, think of the word*  commonwealth!*


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> *Yes, you equate communism with the dictatorships in the USSR and China whuch was no more communist than you are.* In reality communism is too idealistic to actually survive long.Communism is basically, ALL the peole taking ALL of the governmental decisions, everybody owning ALL the national assets and everyone having the same amount of money, property etc. The only one of those things that works is the people owning all the national assets. In Europe in many countries the people own the railways, the utility companies, the airlines, the museums, the hospitals, bus companies etc.The rest is a utopian dream.
> 
> The USSR and it's satellite countries along with China were no different than the Fascist staes of Hitlers Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and China, they were dictatorships who said they were communist states.


 
That may be, but I never brought up communism. Going back to the root of the legislation, this may be why the left could never hold a decent talk radio show. They never stick to the topics.

The author likened the legislation akin to socialist doctrine inasmuch as trampling the 1st ammendment is like leaving what you say, hear, read and write to the Ministry of Truth.

I'm for letting people speak their mind. Our fine Senator from NY, and Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, apparently is NOT.

On a side note, did anyone see that India has its first female president. For a country so lacking in womens rights, I'm surprised.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> End big government, rule yourselves? ah communism! Ok If you don't like that label, think of the word* commonwealth!*


 
Blecthhhh!!! I think we have 2 of those: Massachusetts and Puerto Rico.

Neither let you own nunchaku. 

Anyways, Thanks for the dialog Tez.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> That may be, but I never brought up communism. Going back to the root of the legislation, this may be why the left could never hold a decent talk radio show. They never stick to the topics.
> 
> The author likened the legislation akin to socialist doctrine inasmuch as trampling the 1st ammendment is like leaving what you say, hear, read and write to the Ministry of Truth.
> 
> ...


 

Good grief! India had a female prime minister Indira Gandhi on 1966!  Pakistan has also had female prime ministers. In both these countries being president is a nominal and ceremonial position. The Prime Minister decribes exactly what they are. 


Posted by Andy Moynihan
_Well, *to us it means the same as a communist*( We are built on the premise that what someone earns is theirs, and not the government's to distribute "equally" and to some more equally than others, by their whim. _


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> End big government, rule yourselves? ah communism! Ok If you don't like that label, think of the word* commonwealth!*


 
I live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I hate the **** out of this place, too. 

I get what you're saying that communism, in it's pure, perfect-world, *philosophical* sense does not represent what real world communism always turns into but that's the point: Humans will always be humans and will always seek to benefit themselves at others' expense no matter who is hurt by their doing so. It's what humans DO.

Like the example given us in the very news incident that prompted this thread.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 21, 2007)

The Fairness Doctrine is completely unrelated to the First Amendment. It brings very little energy to bear, either for or against, Free Speech.

But, as long as the right wing nutcases can conflate the two ideas, they win their argument.

The fairness doctrine relates to the finite resource of broadcast spectrum. The broadcast spectrum, for radio and television, in this country are owned by the citizens of the country. Not one group of the citizens, but all of the citizens. The fairness doctrine was an attempt to have all citizens' viewpoints available on those publically owned airwaves.

The fairness doctrine does not / would not effect Fox News - they are a cable channel. The fairness doctricne would not / does not effect MSNBC, or CNN, either.

However, if the fairness doctrine was re-established (it was eliminated under President Reagan), Rush Limbaugh's EIB network would face some challenges. All radio stations would have to more carefully examine the balance of opinion broadcast. Similarly, Sunday morning talk shows, would have to add more liberal voices to their discussions.

Individuals would be able to exercise their first amendment right of free speech via advertising dollars, publications, and standing on a soapbox in the town square. 

People who rail about 'The Fairness Doctrine' don't understand that all of the citizens own the broadcast spectrum. They seem to think that the television stations own the airwaves. That's not true. 

Who's looking out for you?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> People who rail about 'The Fairness Doctrine' don't understand that all of the citizens own the broadcast spectrum. They seem to think that the television stations own the airwaves. That's not true.


 
In my physics class, we build hand radios and discuss this very issue.  The bottom line is that the whole purpose of the FCC is to convince americans that they do not own the airwaves and that they have no right to transmit anything without approval.  In other words, unless you are willing to spout the official government dogma, then you are psuedobarred.

I give major props to all of the radio stations that transmit just outside of our borders.  Those people know the truth of what government censorship in the US is really like.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 27, 2007)

> this may be why the left could never hold a decent talk radio show.


 
TALKERS magazine is the leading trade publication of the talk media.  Each year they publish a list of the 100 most important "talkers," called the "Heavy Hundred."  (This refers to all talkers, not specifically political talkers) This year, progressive Ed Schultz ranked #5, right behind Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and Dr. Laura; and better than Opie & Anthony #6.  Randi Rhodes was #13 (beating O'Reilly #15).  Alan Colmes was #16, Bill Bennett #25, Stephanie Miller #36, and Thom Hartmann #51.

Now, if you consider the fact that _76% of political talk radio is conservative_ (91% is conservative if you only consider the stations owned by the top 5 commercial station owners), the status of libs on TALKERS list is pretty impressive.  Very impressive, actually.  (Those numbers, by the way, were reported by Tucker Carlson--not a liberal--on MSNBC)  

There are some markets--eg Seattle, Portland, San Diego--where Ed Schultz' ratings beat Hannity.  Yet Ed Schultz STILL is heard on fewer than 100 stations.  There are major markets where Randi Rhodes kills Hannity and O'Reilly--yet Hannity and O'Reilly will STILL get more stations.

So it's a myth that there's some kind of "free market" where consumers are choosing Conservatives overwhelmingly over Progressives, thereby making Conservatives a better commercial choice for the station owners.  If the major commercial stations aren't featuring liberal talkers, there isn't a choice for most consumers to make.


----------



## Ray (Jul 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The fairness doctrine relates to the finite resource of broadcast spectrum. The broadcast spectrum, for radio and television, in this country are owned by the citizens of the country. Not one group of the citizens, but all of the citizens. The fairness doctrine was an attempt to have all citizens' viewpoints available on those publically owned airwaves.


NPR must certainly balance out the right wing people. Except for the "car talk" guys, I love that show...I think they are perfect for something politically neutral and entertaining...



michaeledward said:


> However, if the fairness doctrine was re-established (it was eliminated under President Reagan), Rush Limbaugh's EIB network would face some challenges. All radio stations would have to more carefully examine the balance of opinion broadcast. Similarly, Sunday morning talk shows, would have to add more liberal voices to their discussions.


Do you supose that more conservative shows exists (IF indeed they do) than liberal shows because more conservatives are in the market - or do the conservatives control the money that creates the stations? There are lots of other possible reason. Why do you think it is (if you think it is)?



michaeledward said:


> Individuals would be able to exercise their first amendment right of free speech via advertising dollars, publications, and standing on a soapbox in the town square.


Unless they're saying a prayer.

I like to excercise my first amendment right by choosing who I listen to. By choice, not by being force fed a liberal on a conservative station or visa versa. 


michaeledward said:


> Who's looking out for you?


Why, Michael Edward is looking out for me, of course.


----------



## ChadWarner (Jul 27, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Yes, you equate communism with the dictatorships in the USSR and China whuch was no more communist than you are. In reality communism is too idealistic to actually survive long.Communism is basically, ALL the peole taking ALL of the governmental decisions, everybody owning ALL the national assets and everyone having the same amount of money, property etc. The only one of those things that works is the people owning all the national assets. In Europe in many countries the people own the railways, the utility companies, the airlines, the museums, the hospitals, bus companies etc.The rest is a utopian dream.
> 
> The USSR and it's satellite countries along with China were no different than the Fascist staes of Hitlers Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and China, they were dictatorships who said they were communist states.


 
National Socialist Party= That was Hitlers party.  His economic policies were a blend of socialism and terror.   I believe the oder is dictatorship, communism, socialism and capitalism with each having the ability to morph into the one above.  Dictatorship is the one that can't morph... nowhere to go.


----------



## exile (Jul 27, 2007)

ChadWarner said:


> National Socialist Party= That was Hitlers party.  His economic policies were a blend of socialism and terror.   I believe the oder is dictatorship, communism, socialism and capitalism with each having the ability to morph into the one above.  Dictatorship is the one that can't morph... nowhere to go.



Chad, the National Socialist party wasn't a socialist party at all; in fact, long before they started going after the Jews and other ethnic targets, they went after the Socialists, and pretty well wiped them out&#8212;the first occupants of Nazi concentration camps were their left wing opponents (I believe Dachau was largely occupied, at least at the beginning, by those people). But during this same era, the Nazis got along just fine with the Stalinists; in fact, both Hitler and Stalin supplied money and armaments to Franco's Phalangists so that the latter could wipe out the Poum (the Social Democrats), and the anarcho-syndicalists in Barcelona. This has been talked about before on MT; I posted the following quite some time back here in a thread which bears on this issue. 

Hitler called his party National `Socialist' in exactly the same way that the official name of North Korea is the People's *Democratic* Republic of North Korea. You can call your party or your country whatever you like, with no necessary connection to anything remotely like the true meaning of the words you put together. For that matter, the Holy Roman Empire, as people have observed over and over again, was neither Holy nor Roman, and there are grave doubts as to whether it was an actual empire. Social Dems in European parties were and are virtually unanimous that there wasn't anything the least bit socialist about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And so on...

It's important to keep tabs on this sort of thing, because we appear to have slid from characterizing the Fairness doctrine first as socialist, then as communist (under the socialism/communism equation) and now appear to be on the verge of characterizing it as a manifestation of Naziism minus the terrorism aspect.  I don't think these labels serve the discussion well, and the progression from socialism to naziism is progressively more shakey and without historical justification. There are plenty of issues of real content, such as the question of who it is who really owns the airwaves, and what that entails, that have much more bearing on the substance of the OP, I think...


----------



## Carol (Jul 27, 2007)

Heh. Rush Limbaugh and I started our broadcasting career at about the same time....and thats where the similarities end.  LOL!!

When Rush started his career as a rock jock, the shock jocks were starting to get traction, he brought his loudmouth spiel over to the no-mans land of AM.

I think the Fairness Doctrine will result in more consumer choice, just less of it on the AM and FM band.

I don't think we'll see "Rush and Randi" or "Hughes and Savage", I suspect the ubertalkers will jump over to satellite (which is unregulated and hungry for content) so they could continue to do their own thing their own way without the government interfering.

The biggest station groups on the AM band will probably put together some Hannity and Colmes type pairings.  I suspect the overall political oomph, especially on AM, will falter as stations may find its easier to drop the political talk altogether than it is to stay competitive AND be within regs.

Could get interesting.  

*checks stock price of Sirius*


----------



## Carol (Jul 28, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> There are some markets--eg Seattle, Portland, San Diego--where Ed Schultz' ratings beat Hannity.  Yet Ed Schultz STILL is heard on fewer than 100 stations.  There are major markets where Randi Rhodes kills Hannity and O'Reilly--yet Hannity and O'Reilly will STILL get more stations.



More stations does not equal more listenership.  

Teeny tiny Massachusetts has more electoral votes than not-so-tiny Montana, Utah, and Idaho combined.  It takes dozens of radio stations to cover an area of that size.  One single Boston station reaches about as many people as the dozens of rural stations in those states.  The stations in the New York radio market reach more people than all the other stations in all the other parts of all of New York State, combined.  That's the power of major markets.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2007)

Part of the problem is media conglomeration.

Clear Channel and Greater Media continue to purchase radio stations, television stations and newspapers. The bigger these companies become, the less likely they are to take risks in programming. 

If Rush Limbaugh sells airtime, they will take one of two actions; a) syndicate Rush Limbaugh on their stations b) find a personality who will behave more like Rush Limbaugh than Rush Limbaugh.

I travel pretty extensively throughout the Northeast. Every city I go to has "Delilia" spewing her touchy feely bile on two or three frequencies. It's cheap. But, if you pay attention, you'll notice she never mentions a location. 

Broadcasting used to have to make the pretense of serving the local market. Apparently, periodic dispatches from the "National Weather Service" is sufficient to be 'local'. 




One more thing, not specifically to you Ray, but you brought it up. Really, if you think NPR is a balance, you nuts; and you have been buying what the talkjocks sell, rather than listening and using your own brain. NPR is far from left wing. The center does not 'balance' the right wing. Watch Sunday morning FoxNews and you see two of NPR's most prominent personalities; Mara Liasson and Juan Williams. They may look liberal, but that is only because they are sitting next to William Kristol - the guy who recently told us the Bush Presidency was going to be viewed as a tremendous success. 

I would suggest anyone who thinks that Fox is Balance for the Main Stream Media google and read "If it's Sunday, It's Conservative" and "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative".

Then, when you see the Liberal Bias in the News Media, you'll see that Tim Russert bill bring in Republican Chuck Hagel for the left wing view point, to balance indicted former congressman Tom Delay with the right wing view point. Whatever that is, it is not 'balance'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 28, 2007)

Mike is right.  NPR isn't left wing.  Otherwise they would be openly calling for the impeachment of President Bush among other things.  MY opinion is that is that NPR is probably the only balanced news coverage we actually have.  For example, they had Bill Kristol on the other night on Fresh Air.  His interviewer let him give his opinions and asked very probing questions to get deeper and deeper.  They regularly do this to all of their guests.


----------



## Ray (Jul 28, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Part of the problem is media conglomeration.
> 
> Clear Channel and Greater Media continue to purchase radio stations, television stations and newspapers. The bigger these companies become, the less likely they are to take risks in programming.


Thanks for sharing that aspect of why you think the airwaves are programmed conservative. 

I'm sincerely curious why you think it would be "taking a risk" to program otherwise. Whether fiscally or socially liberal (no offense w/ "liberal" if "progressive" fits better), there have to be people who would tune it?



michaeledward said:


> Broadcasting used to have to make the pretense of serving the local market. Apparently, periodic dispatches from the "National Weather Service" is sufficient to be 'local'.


100% agree that they don't serve the local communities.



michaeledward said:


> One more thing, not specifically to you Ray, but you brought it up. Really, if you think NPR is a balance, you nuts;


Truth be told, I might be nuts.

I used to also watch stuff like FSTV on dish and will again soon when I get dish again.

I believe that all kinds of viewpoints should be expressed; and we should be able to hear/read them.  You never know where a good idea will come from; I don't necessarily believe that "all the answers" are in one quarter or the other.  Still, I wish the fairness doctrine wasn't the only way to ensure it happens...


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2007)

I think if the programming were available, many people would tune into liberal media. Right now, there is really no way to tell. 

When I say risk, there are several items that come to bear. Rush Limbaugh did not start his programming on 600 stations. It took quite some time for him to gain that much media coverage. The suits in big businesses have to answer to a quarterly report for stockholders. Introducing liberal programming would need time to build an audience. With the media conglomeration we have witnessed over the past decade, time is a luxury companies are not willing to invest in programming. Why do you think there are three Law & Order franchaises, and how many CSI Franchaises? For the suits, there is no risk in putty a 'little Limbaugh' on the air. And only small risk if you broadcast a 'little Imus'. 

Another risk inherint in introducing liberal programming, is that the existing rightwing programming has a built in target. Never mind that Air America was beating Bill O'Reilly in New York City. Most of the country did not have access to Air America. BillO had 300 stations across the country on which he could attack Air America (as he is attacking DailyKos now). 


In the Boston Market, the Talk Radio station features a bunch of right wing, middle aged white guys. The only liberal personality on the radio station (Jim Braudie) is 'balanced' with a slightly right of center female co-host (Marjorie Egan) for there three hour daily spot. The two rabid, lying, discredited personalities - (Michael Graham and Jay Severin) - each get more air time on the station (4.5 hours and 4 hours respectively), and do not have to have a 'co-host' to 'balance' their point of view. And, their airtime is during morning and evening drive time. 

Hell, just look at the graphic at the top of their web page .. http://www.wtkk.com/ .. do you think you are getting a diversified opinion from these people?


----------



## crushing (Jul 28, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Mike is right. NPR isn't left wing. Otherwise they would be openly calling for the impeachment of President Bush among other things. MY opinion is that is that NPR is probably the only balanced news coverage we actually have. For example, they had Bill Kristol on the other night on Fresh Air. His interviewer let him give his opinions and asked very probing questions to get deeper and deeper. They regularly do this to all of their guests.


 
I tend to agree with your statements about NPR.  One of my favorite shows on NPR is the broadcast of the Commonwealth Club of California.  Independent of whether or not I agree with the speaker, it's good to hear more than the normal 20 to 45 second discussion about important topics and people.  I was even pleasantly surprised by Michael Moore on the show once during the Presidential race in 2000, before he was selling 'F-911'.

Also, it seems to me that the individual's perception of the media being either conservative or liberal tends to tell us more about that individual's political position rather than the media itself.  Media Matters for America and the Media Research Center can each look at the same news and each claim it was slanted towards different sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## Carol (Jul 28, 2007)

Ray said:


> I don't necessarily believe that "all the answers" are in one quarter or the other.  Still, I wish the fairness doctrine wasn't the only way to ensure it happens...



I don't think a Fairness Doctrine will ensure that it happens.

When I was preparing for my FCC license exams, my mentor gave me some software for the law section.  I was intrigued...I thought I was going to be reading jucy tidbits about what you can and can't say on the radio. I was wrong.  Most of FCC law consists of dry engineering formulae.  The regs regarding content were, and are, very vague.  Local interest programming is an example of the vaguaries.  Serving the local market is defined explicitly in the engineering spec, it involves a defined minimum of signal strength over the city of license.  Serving the local market in terms of content...not so clear.

Should a Fairness Doctrine be put in place, what "Fairness" is will likely be argued by attorneys...again favoring the large conglomerates with the bigger resources.

Should properties on the AM band become less commercially viable, that may pave the way for further deregulation of media properties, making the large conglomerates larger. 

My own thoughts...

Liberal talk to me is a still-waiting-to-explode medium.

One of the best radio talk shows I ever heard was hosted by Mr. Dennis Kucenich.  I found myself disagreeing, agreeing, learining, questioning...even though many of my own views were different his, I found his discussions to be quite intriguing.  Sometimes I wish he didn't have his day job. 

If Mr. Kucenich were to make a career change  I'm guessing he would have no problem building up a national following.  And...this is what I find myself wishing for.  Someone that is nationally known with a lot of star power, a lot of charisma, and the communications skills that can blow some rusty old radio doors wide open and show that there is more to liberal talk than coming across as a left-wing Rush.

If that were to happen, I think that would invigorate political discussions a lot more than regulation.


----------



## ChadWarner (Jul 28, 2007)

exile said:


> Chad, the National Socialist party wasn't a socialist party at all; in fact, long before they started going after the Jews and other ethnic targets, they went after the Socialists, and pretty well wiped them outthe first occupants of Nazi concentration camps were their left wing opponents (I believe Dachau was largely occupied, at least at the beginning, by those people). But during this same era, the Nazis got along just fine with the Stalinists; in fact, both Hitler and Stalin supplied money and armaments to Franco's Phalangists so that the latter could wipe out the Poum (the Social Democrats), and the anarcho-syndicalists in Barcelona. This has been talked about before on MT; I posted the following quite some time back here in a thread which bears on this issue.
> 
> Hitler called his party National `Socialist' in exactly the same way that the official name of North Korea is the People's *Democratic* Republic of North Korea. You can call your party or your country whatever you like, with no necessary connection to anything remotely like the true meaning of the words you put together. For that matter, the Holy Roman Empire, as people have observed over and over again, was neither Holy nor Roman, and there are grave doubts as to whether it was an actual empire. Social Dems in European parties were and are virtually unanimous that there wasn't anything the least bit socialist about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And so on...
> 
> It's important to keep tabs on this sort of thing, because we appear to have slid from characterizing the Fairness doctrine first as socialist, then as communist (under the socialism/communism equation) and now appear to be on the verge of characterizing it as a manifestation of Naziism minus the terrorism aspect. I don't think these labels serve the discussion well, and the progression from socialism to naziism is progressively more shakey and without historical justification. There are plenty of issues of real content, such as the question of who it is who really owns the airwaves, and what that entails, that have much more bearing on the substance of the OP, I think...


 
Economic policies I said.  Terror tactics for the rest- I say this becuase of the government ownership or partial ownership of industry- I believe their party had their fingers in most things- and everything near the 3rd reichs (don't crucify my spelling here I am aging LOL) uhm strongest days.  That particular group (the nazis)  used the SA which were a particular group of militants that were executed after their thugery was of no value.  No value means the SA were replaced by hitlers own SS, which he founded and led.  

My point is we have enough laws and government control- let the marketplace decide... ah- as long as foriegn goods have proper tarrifs and our 20 dollar an hour workers don't have to compete with 1 dollar a day foreign workers.  For me, this is what I expect the crooks- er um- I mean the federal governments role is.  Not nation building, not stealing from tax payers, and not circumventing the bill of rights so carefully laid out by Mr. Thomas Jefferson.  Our country, our citizens, and our constitution first.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2007)

ChadWarner said:


> My point is we have enough laws and government control- let the marketplace decide...


 
What if 'the marketplace' demonstrates a reluctance to present choices for consumers. 

Remember, when you could have any color phone you wanted, as long as it was black?

How many people have a radio station on their dial called "The River" ? I bet all of us do. Because one company owns all those stations.

When companies have the legal ability to own dozens of radio stations across the country, the marketplace requirement to drive down costs will dictate making setting up a 'national brand' in broadcast. Local flavor is completely removed. The morning DJ you listen too may be broadcasting from a different time zone. 

In that world, the marketplace, exists only as a concept. It is not a competative environment where mutliple ideas can flourish or fail based on the merits. 

In order for the 'marketplace' to decide, first such a place needs to exist.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 28, 2007)

> More stations does not equal more listenership.


 
I don't agree with this statement in the context of this thread.  For example:  Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz are _all_ heard in the larger markets. But that's where the equity stops.  If Schultz is on fewer than 100 stations (including NYC), and Limbaugh is on 500 (including NYC), then Limbaugh can be heard in more areas by more people, period.  And the disparity is much clearer when you consider that 76% of political talk radio is conservative vs. 24% liberal.  That's a big difference.


----------



## Carol (Jul 28, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> I don't agree with this statement in the context of this thread.  For example:  Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz are _all_ heard in the larger markets. But that's where the equity stops.  If Schultz is on fewer than 100 stations (including NYC), and Limbaugh is on 500 (including NYC), then Limbaugh can be heard in more areas by more people, period.  And the disparity is much clearer when you consider that 76% of political talk radio is conservative vs. 24% liberal.  That's a big difference.



Ahh...I follow now.  Thanks.  :asian:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jul 29, 2007)

Doesnt the idea of politicians defining and legislating "fairness" scare any of you? It sure does me.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 29, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Doesnt the idea of politicians defining and legislating "fairness" scare any of you? It sure does me.




It scares me. Also if the airwaves are "owned" by everyone, then could not the "other-side" of what ever is the concern just get air time of their own? 

Could I demand to have my time as well since I agree with both of the major parties in the USA on many issues?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 29, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> It scares me. Also if the airwaves are "owned" by everyone, then could not the "other-side" of what ever is the concern just get air time of their own?
> 
> Could I demand to have my time as well since I agree with both of the major parties in the USA on many issues?


 
The airwaves are owned by the citizens. The rights to use those airwaves are licensed to the broadcasting companies. The companies that own the broadcast equipment are not philanthranpic organizations willing to donate this limited resource to anyone with an opinion. They will happily sell you air time to broadcast your opinion. Remember, in this country, money equals speech.

Isn't that perverse ... if you are a citizen of the country, you are a partial owner of the broadcast spectrum, but you can't use it without going through a multinational corporate gatekeeper. The 'major parties in the USA' do not hold the licenses to the broadcast spectrum. The holders of those licenses are Viacom, Disney, and General Electric. 

I believe there should be few, if any restrictions, upon a citizens right to vote in this country. However, if you are unaware of the basic configuration of how information is disseminated to America through the broadcast media (still, the most popular method for Americans to receive information, by far), you should be ashamed of yourself when you step into a voting booth. 

Oh, and incidentally, you *can not* set up a broadcast device in your backyard. The broadcast spectrum is controlled by the Federal Communications Commission


----------



## Blindside (Jul 29, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The airwaves are owned by the citizens. The rights to use those airwaves are licensed to the broadcasting companies. The companies that own the broadcast equipment are not philanthranpic organizations willing to donate this limited resource to anyone with an opinion. They will happily sell you air time to broadcast your opinion. Remember, in this country, money equals speech.


 
I don't really see what the problem with a free-market approach to this is.  You are correct, these companies aren't philanthropic, if they want to reach a significant portion of the consumer base they better cover all ends of the political spectrum.  Political watchdogging of this just seems so unnecessary.

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 29, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I don't really see what the problem with a free-market approach to this is. You are correct, these companies aren't philanthropic, if they want to reach a significant portion of the consumer base they better cover all ends of the political spectrum. Political watchdogging of this just seems so unnecessary.


 
You are assuming the market is 'free'.  Who are the competitors? What are the barriers to entry, if I wish to compete with these companies? 

And to whom do the conglomerates owe their allegience, the citizens who allow them to generate revenue with their airwaves, or the stockholders in the corporation?

If there is a conflict between what is good for the citizenry, and what is good for the company, how does this conflict get resolved? 

For the record, my political point of view is not covered by *any media, anywhere in America*.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 29, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Oh, and incidentally, you *can not* set up a broadcast device in your backyard. The broadcast spectrum is controlled by the Federal Communications Commission


 
How about we get rid of the FCC instead of reinstituting the "fairness" doctrine?  Let anybody with a handset and some amps broadcast and lets get a real competition of ideas going.  Under the current system, all the "fairness" doctrine is going to do is let both heads of the hydra speak at once.


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 29, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The 'major parties in the USA' do not hold the licenses to the broadcast spectrum. The holders of those licenses are Viacom, Disney, and General Electric.


 


michaeledward said:


> Oh, and incidentally, you *can not* set up a broadcast device in your backyard. The broadcast spectrum is controlled by the Federal Communications Commission





michaeledward said:


> You are assuming the market is 'free'. Who are the competitors? What are the barriers to entry, if I wish to compete with these companies?



People can set up their own broadcasting stations if they follow the rules laid down by the FCC. It may take money, but that is the same as setting up a newspaper. Do you suppose that newspapers should be next for the fairness doctrine?

I do not think that everyone owns the airwaves. There are limits on the amount of bandwidths availible and they should be prevented from immoral acts. Libel, slander, fraud and encouraging others to violence are things that should be prevented from anyone putting out any sort of media message. Regulations so that one station does not drown out another station are also needed.

But there is a limited number of roads administered by the government. Should people driving on them be forced to do certain things for the government in return in the name of 'fairness'? Should people with cars using the roads be forced to give rides to people who do not in the name of fairness? There are also implications in this debate for the internet that was originally set up and is still monitored by the US government.

And what is "fair"? Blotan Hunka and Rich Parsons are right in their fear of a government forcing others to do what they think is "fair." If you let that nose of the camel into the tent there is no telling where things will end up. Take a look at the assaults right now on the free press in Russia, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe and the excuses being given. The less a government is able to tell what a press source can, can't and must say the better.

Seriously, who determines that one argument needs fair counter balance? There are people who deny that the holocaust happened or that American went to the moon. Are you going to give them equal time to those that do say these things happened?

And if you say that the number of people that think that way are too small to consider, what happens to the idea of this being needed to protect the minority?

If the government instead gets to choose which issues are serious and which are too silly to give equal time to, the potential for abuse is huge. There is no objective standards to look to like in the case of libel, fraud or encouraging violence. And I can think of some politicians that might require equal time to creationists every time a special on Darwin is shown.

The less that a government can tell us what to do the better. It is a universal principle because everyone is treated equally under the law. That goes for me, that goes for you and that goes for the broadcasters.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 29, 2007)

> How about we get rid of the FCC instead of reinstituting the "fairness" doctrine? Let anybody with a handset and some amps broadcast and lets get a real competition of ideas going. Under the current system, all the "fairness" doctrine is going to do is let both heads of the hydra speak at once.


 
Interesting concept.  I think, though, that the stronger signals would completely blot out the weaker signals.  And who'd have the stronger signals?  Probably Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney--the usual suspects.  So you'd still have large corporations broadcasting mainly in their own self interest.

However, in areas where there are more small, locally owned stations, there IS more "fairness"--more diversity of ideas.

michaeledward is correct: there is no media free market.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 30, 2007)

Phoenix44 said:


> Interesting concept. I think, though, that the stronger signals would completely blot out the weaker signals. And who'd have the stronger signals? Probably Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney--the usual suspects. So you'd still have large corporations broadcasting mainly in their own self interest.
> 
> However, in areas where there are more small, locally owned stations, there IS more "fairness"--more diversity of ideas.
> 
> michaeledward is correct: there is no media free market.


 
When people realize how easy it is to build a hand radio, then they will truly understand that anyone, if they want to, can grab a bit of the airway if they have the amperage.  Right now, the FCC cracks down on anyone who doesn't have a license and is not spouting the official government line.  There are a lot of expatriot radio operators that operate just outside of our borders.  If you had a hand set, you might be able to tune into what they are saying...

If anyone was able to build a set and transmit, the large conglomerations could never compete.  They only exist because the government shuts the competition down.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2007)

There is a difference between broadcast and print.

Broadcast spectrum is limited, where as print media is not. If I wish to set up a newspaper, I can contract the local printing company and start writing. If I wish to set up a broadcast signal, I must make a decision as to which frequency to use. 

Let's say, I want to use a band that is currently used by the fire department. And I build a transmitter that puts out so much power, that the fire department's radios can no longer communicate, but they can listen to my political leanings and 80's corporate rock.


Incidentally, Mr. E, in the past ten years, the FCC has not given out any new FM band broadcasting licenses. That is a significant barrier to entry. It is in no way analogous to starting paper. 

http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/FullPowerfactsheet07.cfm

According to this web site, the grant of frequencies the FCC will undertake this fall is irrelevant to me because there are no availalbe frequencies in my area. 

http://www.getradio.org/frequency_finder


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 30, 2007)

I guess that's why I pay for satellite radio.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2007)

_~ ~ Invisible airwaves crackle with life ~ ~ 
~ ~ Bright antennae bristle with the energy ~ ~ 
~ ~ Emotional feedback on timeless wavelength ~ ~ 
~ ~ Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free ~ ~ _


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Incidentally, Mr. E, in the past ten years, the FCC has not given out any new FM band broadcasting licenses. That is a significant barrier to entry. It is in no way analogous to starting paper.



So if _the government_ will not give out any more licenses that gives _the government_ the right to tell broadcasters what they must report?

It seems a strange sort of logic to me. 

Would it not be better to get the FCC to issue new licenses? I am of the understanding that even in major areas there is still some bands on both the TV and FM bands where there is nothing, so there must be more space to give out. These do not intrude on police, fire or other bands being used. They are only on the FM bands devoted to music.

And again, I urge everyone to look at the way the voices of political opposition has been silenced in places like Russia, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe. In all cases, the laws meant to legislate the media and make them fair has been abused and twisted to shut down those the government does not like. If the government can shut down a station for not being "fair" and at the same time it is the government that can judge what moves are fair or not, then there is a huge potential for abuse. The government can just decide that nothing a station does qualifies as being fair in their view.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2007)

Mr. E ... you keep referencing other countries, that have little to do with this conversation. Your request to analyze state-operated media is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Regulating broadcast is not the same as controlling the broadcast.

The 'Fairness Doctrine' is not about silencing anyone's point of view. It is about giving voice to points of view that do not currently have an outlet. You have argued that 'free market' and we have demonstrated that because of the *limited bandwidth* there is not a free market.

Where there is limited resources, it is acceptable to have regulation. It can be appropriate to discuss the breadth and depth of regulation. And thinking people can have differing opinions on that regulation. 

Your position, however, seems to be that all regulation is bad. That government is the problem, and can not be part of the solution.

There was a time when the airplanes operated under the 'big sky' paradigm; the sky was so big, that no regulation was needed. After a mid-air collision between United and TWA over the Grand Canyon, our congress legilstated the airspace over our heads, with the creation of the FAA. Why isn't/wasn't this a bad idea?


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 30, 2007)

This is ALL about getting the conservatives off the air. Regardless of what the MichaelEdward's of the world would have you believe.

There is no shortage of air time. It is consumer driven.

Want somthing to ***** about? Try NPR and how their political left-wing sewage is supported by OUR tax dollars.


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Mr. E ... you keep referencing other countries, that have little to do with this conversation. Your request to analyze state-operated media is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Regulating broadcast is not the same as controlling the broadcast.



No, the situation in Russia and elsewhere is not about state-operated media. Please look at the situation as I said.

In all three countries, *independent* media sources have been shut down by the government. The methods used by the government have been perversions of the laws meant to regulate the media.

So are you saying that American politicians are incapable of bending or abusing a law like the countries I mentioned? Are you of the opinion that we should trust the government *not* to use this to go against stations they don't like? There is a great potential for abuse.



> The 'Fairness Doctrine' is not about silencing anyone's point of view. It is about giving voice to points of view that do not currently have an outlet. You have argued that 'free market' and we have demonstrated that because of the limited bandwidth there is not a free market.



Actually, you pointed to the fact that the FCC has not issued a new liscense in ten years as the reason for the limited bandwidth. As I pointed out, there does seem to be quite a bit of both television and radio frequencies yet to be used.

As for giving voice to points of view that do not have an outlet- who decides what voices other than the government? If you hate Bush think of him calling the shots on who gets to put their views on the air. If you hate Clinton think of the same.

In most elections there are more than just two candidates on the ballot. Is the government going to force stations to give every candidate the same amount of time? What if there are 50 candidates?

You think I am kidding? Do you recall that election that put Arnie in the California govenor's mansion? How many people signed up just to put their name on the ballot? I know there was a porn star trying to gain some fame.

If stations are going to be forced to give equal time to anyone who gets enough signatures to get on a ballot, just how many people will try to cash in on that publicity?

And if you are not going to force the stations to take everyone, who decides who is worthy and what happens to the idea of giving a voice to the minority? Again, if there is a special on Darwin's theories do we require that the creatonists get equal time? If not, then why are some minority voices to be ignored while others deemed worthy?

I see that the fairness doctrine used to be law. Was the green party candidate ever given equal time on the air with the Republicans and Democrats? If not, how fair is that? But if everyone is allowed to get their stuff broadcast free in equal time to the big parties, there will be people crawling out of the woodwork to lap up that media time.

I am not against the government regulating things. We need traffic regulations and laws against murder and all that good stuff. But the idea of the government getting to decide that something is fair or not and being able to force what they say is fair on others is not a good one.

And as Monadock says, the real complaint perhaps should be against tax supported media. Why should the government use money taken from the taxpayers to fund any sort of media? Is there a reason we need another station on the air? There are already things like the emergency broadcast network. I am talking about funding entertainment channels. It is nice that there is opera on the radio, but does it have to be funded by the government? Why isn't Japanese ancient court music given a radio station by the government instead? Not enough people? Well then, what ever happened to the idea of giving the minority access?

If I see the government has taken my tax money to fund programs about how creationism is just as valid a point of view as evolution you can bet I would get mad. And who is to say that the local politicians would not require that sort of programming? Or they can give out money to people without any sort of oversight, and that would mean that Nazis can line up to make documentaries on the lie of the holocaust with your tax dollars. Who gets to decide what is a valid viewpoint to be funded and which is to be ignored? Under a democracy, all points are supposed to be allowed to speak their voice. But with state funded media, certain viewpoints are given an advantage by the government.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> This is ALL about getting the conservatives off the air. Regardless of what the MichaelEdward's of the world would have you believe.
> 
> There is no shortage of air time. It is consumer driven.
> 
> Want somthing to ***** about? Try NPR and how their political left-wing sewage is supported by OUR tax dollars.


 
So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs. 

By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR. 

And, we have discussed that NPR is not left wing. As for whether it is sewage or not, compare and contrast with Coulter, Limbaugh, Severin, O'Reilly, Ingraham. Please. 

There is no comparison.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs.
> 
> By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR.
> 
> ...


 

But they are successful because people WANT to listen to their message. Or are outraged by it but still watch/listen/read them. Either way, sponsors back popularity, sponsors mean money, money means more air time. Al Franken was a flop, admit it. Unlike NPR, MY tax dollars arent being used to express their views. Perhaps the left should be more concerned that their views are apparently not a crowd pleaser on the radio...instead of blaming the "vast right wing conspiracy" yet another time.


----------



## ChadWarner (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> What if 'the marketplace' demonstrates a reluctance to present choices for consumers.
> 
> Remember, when you could have any color phone you wanted, as long as it was black?
> 
> ...


Well nothing is perfect, otherwise we would all be happy all of the time.  And there are monopoly laws and oligopoly laws as well.  Seems to me there is not enough enforcement of said laws--- or any laws for that matter.  

!2,000 pages to the tax code= that is corruption and a bunch of egomaniacal old men poisoning the well from which we all drink.   I honestly can not think of another law that needs to be written.  Or another big fat spending bill that further increases US dependence on foriegn energy and food--- How many more dogs need to die before poison is in the human food supply?  

What does this have to do with the price of coke?  Depends on if it is manufactured in mexico and smuggled across the border non taxed and sold to americans in at a taco stand somewhere.  How fair is that to people who follow the rules, pay the taxes and so on?   This country is not fair- never was, oppertunity exists for those who will take it.  If people did not listen to talk radio- then half of the scandles on capitol hill and the rest of the world (dubai ports deal for one) those dirty old men on capitol hill would rob until they died.  

Can you imagine selling our port security to an arab country-  especially after GW starts a vietnam in the middle east...  Talk radio is responsible for letting the public in on this dirty deal.  Both sides of the fence want a muzzle for talk radio- it exposes their thievery on broader base because this stuff is not on the evening news day in and day out.  They would rather talk about paris hilton crying about going to jail...  The light needs to be turned on so the roaches scatter.


----------



## Ray (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs.
> 
> By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR.


Good bombs cost more. 

I'm sure that most Americans can find something in the gov't spending that they object to.  



michaeledward said:


> And, we have discussed that NPR is not left wing.


Right and left are relative.  Since we all believe that we're fair minded, MOR people, then anything that is a left or right of our position is just plain left or right.


----------



## Carol (Jul 30, 2007)

Ray said:


> Right and left are relative.  Since we all believe that we're fair minded, MOR people, then anything that is a left or right of our position is just plain left or right.



There was a time when I was an RNC member, now I'm not sure what a Republican is.  What is "Left" and what is "Right" ?


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs.
> 
> By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR.
> 
> ...


 
Defense is outlined as a duty of the government. Not bad piano music and snot-nosed reporters aiding the enemy.


----------



## crushing (Jul 30, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> There was a time when I was an RNC member, now I'm not sure what a Republican is. What is "Left" and what is "Right" ?


 
I hear ya.  I think that is because 'right' and 'left' and the linear 'political spectrum' are inadequate in descriptors for the amount of diversity of political thought we have.  For example, how can you have both big government neo-cons to the right with the other conservatives and libertarians?  They just don't fit there.

I like the Nolan Chart, as it adds a dimension, and does a much better job, but it is not so well known.  Plus it my be a bit disconcerting to those that think it is only 'us v. them' to find it may really be 'us v. them v. them v. them'.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2007)

Ray, I do not view myself as a 'fair minded, MOR person'. I am decidedly left wing ... bordering on socialist. I understand that my opinions are at the edge of the bell curve in our society. But I do believe I get there with logic and reasoning. 

I can appreciate that people may hold opinions differing from my own. And they may hold those opinions passionately. I will gladly argue and debate on merits. The trick seems to be finding a 'fair minded referee'. 

I was just listening to Ken Pollack on NPR. Ken Pollack is not, by anyone's attribution, a left wing personality forwarding left wing positions. The NPR reportered asked questions, and allowed Mr. Pollack to answer those questions. That's not the type of treatment one hears on right-wing talk radio, eh? 



			
				Monadnock said:
			
		

> Defense is outlined as a duty of the government. Not bad piano music and snot-nosed reporters aiding the enemy.


 
The argument that dropping bombs on Iraq provides *defense* is a struggle, at best, and outright lie and crime, at worst. I have a degree in music, and yes, there is some bad piano music on NPR, there is also glorifying piano music on NPR. Usually, because it is royalty free. 

As for accusing reporters of being traitors ... I would prefer a report get as close to an objective truth as possible. The nature of the job is to report facts. Not to advance political ideology. 

But, if you want to piss on the First Amendment, I suppose that tells us more about you, than the reporters.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The argument that dropping bombs on Iraq provides *defense* is a struggle, at best, and outright lie and crime, at worst.
> 
> ...
> 
> But, if you want to piss on the First Amendment, I suppose that tells us more about you, than the reporters.


 
As everyone can see, continuing to argue with the idiot will only bring you down to their level. 

A discussion can go nowhere with these types of folk, who like their hippy predecessors can sure scream and yell about nothing, but do at least smell a little better.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 30, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> But they are successful because people WANT to listen to their message. Or are outraged by it but still watch/listen/read them. Either way, sponsors back popularity, sponsors mean money, money means more air time. Al Franken was a flop, admit it.


Al Franken was a reactive move. It wasn't meant to fill a market as much to match vitriol with vitriol. It failed 'cause it was a knee jerk reaction. The Half Hour News Hour will fail for similar reasons. (Conservatives don't need a news show parody since they already have Fox News.)


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> Why should the government use money taken from the taxpayers to fund any sort of media? Is there a reason we need another station on the air? There are already things like the emergency broadcast network. I am talking about funding entertainment channels. It is nice that there is opera on the radio, but does it have to be funded by the government? Why isn't Japanese ancient court music given a radio station by the government instead? Not enough people? Well then, what ever happened to the idea of giving the minority access?
> 
> If I see the government has taken my tax money to fund programs about how creationism is just as valid a point of view as evolution you can bet I would get mad. And who is to say that the local politicians would not require that sort of programming? Or they can give out money to people without any sort of oversight, and that would mean that Nazis can line up to make documentaries on the lie of the holocaust with your tax dollars. Who gets to decide what is a valid viewpoint to be funded and which is to be ignored? Under a democracy, all points are supposed to be allowed to speak their voice. But with state funded media, certain viewpoints are given an advantage by the government.


 
There is a principle of 'common good' or 'public interest'. This is the principle that allows government to fund highways, airports, telephone and national defense. All citizens benefit from these products and infrastructure. Individual citizens can not create a useful version of these items alone. It would be akin to a highway, without any exit ramps; or a single fax machine. 

In general, modern day Republicans oppose the principle of 'public interest'. From Ronald Reagan's conservativism ~ government is the problem ~ through to Grover Norquist's American's for Tax Reform ~ drown government in the bathtub, they have opposed public good at every turn.

The United States Declaration of Indepedence tells us that Governments are formed to preserve and protect the rights of the people. And that those governments are granted their powers by the *consent of the governed.* As I recently posted in a different thread, I would prefer that the consent of the governed by *informed* consent.

In Thomas Jefferson's time, it was the newspaper and the pamphlet that presented the marketplace of ideas to the citizenry. In the past sixty years, our society has moved away from print, where there was a variety of voices, to broadcast which is significantly more limited. Further, broadcast is a one-way medium. The talking heads tell us things, but rarely listen, and even more rarely discuss. (Do you see the Republican Presidential Candidates running away from YouTube?).

So, to address some of your questions; the broadcast spectrum is limited. Not only is the actual bandwidth limited, changes in ownership put in place under President Bush means that even with many different stations, the same corporate ownership has created bigger megaphones for themselves. (you never addressed this point earlier). So, while there may be an frequency available in Peoria for a new voice, that voice is not going to be heard in New York, Los Angeles, or Detroit. Within the confines of these limitations (physical bandwith, consolidated ownership), it is appropriate for the government to help inform the governed. Because it is from us, the public, that government derives its just powers. 

Who would you trust, your government, for whom you can vote every two, four, or six years, or Rupert Murdoch? 

We do not need another station on the air. What we need is additional points of view on the air. And not in screamfests. Not with Bill O'Rielly cutting of the microphone of guests. 

Despite what you have heard, the government provides very little money to public broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting operating budget for this year is about one dollar and thirty five cents per person in the country. Four hundred million dollars may sound like a lot, but when you look at all it does, it is a bargain. May I recommend you watch Ken Burns 'The War' when it is broadcast this fall. I'm sure you'll consider that well worth your $1.35 investment. But, in answer to your question as to why should government money be used .... from CPB's web site, we learn the 1934 Communications Act says, "it is in the public interest {hey, didn't I see that phrase earlier in this post?} to encourage the use of such (public) media for instructional, educational and cultural purposes". 

You ask about minority access. Where, in your 'free market' equation does minority access play a part? I posit it does not play a part. Not for opera, not for foreign language, not for anything. If a market segment is too small to gain the attention of Disney, it gets no access. Well, unless you look to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB has a strategic initiative to serve the unserved, and underserved audiences. With a mandate to focus on the bottom line, I guess they can reach out a bit.

Incidentally, let's talk about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It is a clever creation of our government to keep the politicians hands off of the broadcasters. Money is granted to the CPB by Congress (you know, 1.35 per person), and the CPB distributes those allocated funds to the broadcasters. So, Barney Frank can add an earmark for a gay purple dinosaur on PBS. CPB was set up to be non-partisan, and a breakwater between the people who allocate the money, and the people who spend it. (Extra credit - wanna guess who has tried to politicize the non-partisan CPB? Bueller? Bueller?)



Lastly, let's take a look at your last sentence ..._ But with state funded media, certain viewpoints are given an advantage by the government _...  Are you really arguing that with corporately owned media, certain viewpoints are not given an advantage by the corporate entity that owns the broadcast hardware?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> As everyone can see, continuing to argue with the idiot will only bring you down to their level.
> 
> A discussion can go nowhere with these types of folk, who like their hippy predecessors can sure scream and yell about nothing, but do at least smell a little better.


 
It was you that accused reporters of being traitors, right? 



			
				Monadnock said:
			
		

> snot-nosed reporters aiding the enemy.


 
Are you really trying to blame that accusation on me? 

Wow.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jul 30, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.


Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There is a principle of 'common good' or 'public interest'. This is the principle that allows government to fund highways, airports, telephone and national defense. All citizens benefit from these products and infrastructure. Individual citizens can not create a useful version of these items alone. It would be akin to a highway, without any exit ramps; or a single fax machine.



The public interest is supposed to be used in cases where there is a need for all people that can't be handled by anything other than the government. National defense is one, roads are another. 

In cases where there are services provided by the public, the government is not supposed to step in. There may not be as many supermarkets gearned toward the Vegan lifestyle, but that does not mean that the government can either force the supermarkets to cater to them or run their own stores in competition with them.

So why should _any_ money go to fund entertainment programs? Even if it is less per person than a typical lunch, why should any money be spent at all?

The core of your argument seems to be that PBS and the fairness doctrine are needed to inform the public.

But _is there no other way for people to get the information?_

In this world of internet and public libraries, is it not really a case of people just not being willing to do the searching out on their own?

The truth is out there. There is no need to force anyone to broadcast anything. The people who don't know the issues aren't ignorant due to a lack of availible information- it just is _too much trouble_ for them to do the simple research.



> Who would you trust, your government, for whom you can vote every two, four, or six years, or Rupert Murdoch?



I do not trust Howard, Bush, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Brown, Abe, Putin, Mugabe, Chavez or any other politician. I am not limited to getting my information from just Murdoch. I am not even limited to the broadcast media. I get my information mainly from other sources. But I am limited to one government and giving them the monopoly on what constitutes fairness scares me. 

IMO, it is a bit insane trying to force stations to broadcast _what the government and only the government_says is a fair balance to cater to those too lazy and stupid to use the written word. Better we make them run public service announcements urging people to either research the matter or stay home on election day.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2007)

Mr. E. 

* Your first argument is not unreasonable. Although, I don't particularly like the word choice; "the government is not supposed to step in". 'not supposed' is pretty strong language. As I pointed out, our declaration of independence tells us governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If the governed determine that Federal support of Seasame Street and the News Hour is a 'just power', it is awfully arrogant of you to tell them their government is 'not supposed' to do that. 

But, should government participate in broadcasting, at all. We have discussed that the broadcast spectrum is limited. If it was an unlimited, or renewable resource ~ such as food at a grocery store ~ then perhaps it could remain 'hands off'. But, if you want your police department to be able to communicate without unintentional interference from amatuer broadcasters, the government needs to be involved in allocating the spectrum for use. If we left it to the majority, more people listen to classic rock than fly F-16's. The Majority need not allow any bandwidth for national defense or social services. 

So, the government *is* involved in broadcast spectrum. You can't undo that. 

* As for if there are other methods of people gathering information. You do realize there is no fairness doctrine today, right? You realize that no one is seriously talking about reinstating this idea in our broadcast medium. The only people who are talking about it are right wing nut-jobs. They are creating a phantom menace to attack. You got that, right? 

But, let's talk about where the fairness doctrine would apply. It would apply to the airwaves. It would not apply to anything that comes to your media through a wire. Nor would it apply to anything that comes to you with a bill attached. No cable television. No satellite radio. That means, the AM & FM radio dials, and UHF and VHF television. You mention the 'internet'. It is irrelevant to the discussion. 

That you wish to blame the people for not seeking out information, does not absolve the government from doing its job. But, if you can just say 'the people are stupid for not reading', you have created your phantom menace. Perhaps you have heard of the suffragettes. There was a time when women were not considered informed enough to vote. And before that, black men need not present themselves at the polling place. And before, that only property owning white males really needed to be informed. 

I think the more people who participate in our governance, the better. And, as I have said earlier, I believe it is better that the governed provide their 'informed consent'. I am going to talk about a specific example now. I do this at some risk, because I don't want to change the topic, but rather demonstrate why the idea is appropriate. 

If the broadcast companies (Viacom, Disney, and General Electric) start subscribing to the idea of a 'flat tax' or 'fair tax', they can present the positives for these concepts overwhelmingly ~ because they pay the talent you hear on the radio. They can spin everything about the flat tax as a positive, and rename the estate tax the death tax. They can mislead people to thinking the estate tax affects everyone. Create a bogeyman for the everyman, when in fact less than 1% of the population ever needs to consider the estate tax. Where is the debate on other tax structures? How can we citizens make an informed decision, when all we hear is one side of the argument? Who is telling us the positives of progressive taxes? How does one even begin to know to look at value added taxes when they visit the internet or library, when the only thing they hear ~ and the hear it everywhere ~ is flat tax? 


Lastly, you continue to misrepresent how public broadcasting works. The governement is one step removed from the broadcast. There is no need for you to trust any of the politicians. They intentionally set up the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as the double-blind test. (Of course, George W. has been working to dismantle the CPB - that's the answer to the earlier trivia). While you are not limited to how you get your information, the idea of the fairness doctrine is quite limited. The fairness doctrine is not a monopoly on anything. For you to continue to describe it as such is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 31, 2007)

Mr Edward,
Are you trying to insult me by accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?

Please take note of what the moderators have warned about please.



michaeledward said:


> Mr. E.
> 
> * Your first argument is not unreasonable. Although, I don't particularly like the word choice; "the government is not supposed to step in". 'not supposed' is pretty strong language. As I pointed out, our declaration of independence tells us governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If the governed determine that Federal support of Seasame Street and the News Hour is a 'just power', it is awfully arrogant of you to tell them their government is 'not supposed' to do that.



I do believe it is the constitution of the United States itself in the form of the tenth ammendment that puts limits on what the federal government can do. I do think that trumps the declaration of independence.

And the examples you gave were ones where only the government could deal with the problem. Roads have to be built and to do that some people have to be forced to move their houses. When there is no need, the government of most countries really are frowned upon stepping into the private arena. You are perhaps aware of the abuse of the process of eminent domain by local governments now in the news?



michaeledward said:


> But, should government participate in broadcasting, at all. We have discussed that the broadcast spectrum is limited. If it was an unlimited, or renewable resource ~ such as food at a grocery store ~ then perhaps it could remain 'hands off'. But, if you want your police department to be able to communicate without unintentional interference from amatuer broadcasters, the government needs to be involved in allocating the spectrum for use. If we left it to the majority, more people listen to classic rock than fly F-16's. The Majority need not allow any bandwidth for national defense or social services.
> 
> So, the government *is* involved in broadcast spectrum. You can't undo that.



The government is also involved in transportation. There are limited amounts of roads and the misuse of driving and such requires that the government regulate what people *cannot* do. It does not force them to be fair to others or make special trips, etc.



michaeledward said:


> * As for if there are other methods of people gathering information. You do realize there is no fairness doctrine today, right? You realize that no one is seriously talking about reinstating this idea in our broadcast medium. The only people who are talking about it are right wing nut-jobs. They are creating a phantom menace to attack. You got that, right?
> 
> But, let's talk about where the fairness doctrine would apply. It would apply to the airwaves. It would not apply to anything that comes to your media through a wire. Nor would it apply to anything that comes to you with a bill attached. No cable television. No satellite radio. That means, the AM & FM radio dials, and UHF and VHF television. You mention the 'internet'. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> ...


 
You argue that there needs to be an informed populace. And that unless the government *forces* broadcasters to give what the government thinks is both sides of the story that an informed populace is impossible. It seems to me that you are the one with the low opinion of the populace as a whole. I point out that there are sources for those who bother to read to become informed about the issues. At the same time, I do feel that there are a lot of people that are too lazy to seek out this type of stuff and _no matter_ what you do, those people will not become informed voters. You have perhaps heard the expression on how you can lead a horse to water, but can't make them drink? Well, in the world today there is a lot of information that anyone can seek out. People just will not make the effort because it is *not convinient* for them. Is this the type of people you think should be catered to?

In this world of newspapers, internet and libraries the argument that there just is no access to any opposing viewpoints does not hold water. You only are talking about how some people just will not put in the effort to think outside the box. They exist, but I do not like the idea that some people have that we can treat the entire country as being sheep that can't be trusted to take care of themselves as well as _the right people in the government_ can.

Let me give you an example, using yourself. I hope you don't mind.

I originally said this.



> And again, I urge everyone to look at the way the voices of political opposition has been silenced in places like Russia, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe. In all cases, the laws meant to legislate the media and make them fair has been abused and twisted to shut down those the government does not like.



You responded with the following.



> Mr. E ... you keep referencing other countries, that have little to do with this conversation. Your request to analyze *state-operated* media is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Regulating broadcast is not the same as controlling the broadcast.



Aside from the fact that forcing a broadcaster to air opposing views is indeed "controlling the broadcast", I never talked about *state-operated* media. My point was that rules meant to regulate the media had been abused by various governments and used to shut down opposition voices.

These cases are not secrets. Anyone who reads a paper _and pays attention_ to the news instead of the latest hair style of Britney would know this.

But you yourself seemingly were unaware of this.

So, despite the information being availible, you just did not pay attention. And do you not think that knowing about past examples of governments using regulations like this to shut down opposition voices should be looked at and considered to engage in *informed and educated* discussion of the subject?

Here is a link to recent article about the matter in Venezuela. The shut down of an independent broadcaster by Chavez happened just around the end of May and beggining of June. We are not even talking about old history.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ac7ndP.q7t9Y

Please take the time to read the article. Please note how the excuse for needing an informed populace can be used to justify the way Chavez requires broadcasters to cover the speeches of Venezuela's president live? And also note how it keeps out voices he does not like.



michaeledward said:


> Lastly, you continue to misrepresent how public broadcasting works. The governement is one step removed from the broadcast. There is no need for you to trust any of the politicians. They intentionally set up the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as the double-blind test. (Of course, George W. has been working to dismantle the CPB - that's the answer to the earlier trivia). While you are not limited to how you get your information, the idea of the fairness doctrine is quite limited. The fairness doctrine is not a monopoly on anything. For you to continue to describe it as such is intellectually dishonest.



I thought I made my point very clear about the problems of people being forced to pay for some point of view being put on the air with no accounting to those forced to pay. It does not matter if it is a government, or PBS. If anyone wants to broadcast a story about how gays are perverts, under the constitution they are entitled to do so- for the moment. I do not see how my tax dollars are reuired to pay for it if that happens or what dire need or threat to the populace at large requires that this broadcast happens with government support.

And I also pointed out how laws similar to the fairness doctrine have been used in other countries to shut down voices the government does not like. I did not say that it was a monopoly, only that similar moves have been used to lead to a virtual monopoly.

So I am not being intellecutually dishonest. Please read what I write more carefully and try not to attack or insult others that do not agree with you.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2007)

The Federal Government is involved in deciding who can broadcast by the allocation of spectrum license. And the companies that hold those licenses control the content. And despite your claims to the opposite, even those with money are prevented from purchasing time on those corporately controlled airwaves. 

I direct you to 'Child's Play', an entry in the 'Bush in 30 Seconds' contest sponsored by MoveOn . Org. Viacom (CBS) refused to allow this advertisement to be broadcast during the Superbowl. 

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/01/16/moveon/index.html



> There's no legal recourse for groups denied the chance to buy themselves a soapbox. Given the public nature of the airwaves, one might think that at least some First Amendment protections would obtain. In fact, though, there's no right to free speech on network TV, even for those who can pay for it.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 31, 2007)

> The Federal Government is involved in deciding who can broadcast by the allocation of spectrum license. And the companies that hold those licenses control the content. And despite your claims to the opposite, even those with money are prevented from purchasing time on those corporately controlled airwaves


 
That is correct.  And since the ownership of the airwaves belongs to the public, the licensees are supposed to be responsible to the public. That doesn't mean using the airwaves solely for their own profit and corporate agenda.  

Actually, the fairness doctrine was a non-issue until recently, when one corporate entity, Sinclair, was FORCING its 62 local stations to air a controversial partisan film right before an election with no commitment to air opposing viewpoints.  As a matter of fact, they weren't even accepting PAID opposing viewpoints.  That was particularly egregious misuse of the public airways, and it provoked the call for return of the fairness doctrine.

Corporate broadcasters, and cable providers, are also supposed to offer "public access," often in return for lucrative broadband contracts or other benefits.  But have you ever tried to get public access?  In New Jersey, the provider frequently pre-empts public access programs with sporting events.  On Long Island, they put numerous barriers in your way:  required courses, exams, contracts.

Increased local control of broadcast media does provide greater diversity of opinion, but in todays market, fewer corporate entities are acquiring more stations, decreasing diversity.


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And despite your claims to the opposite, even those with money are prevented from purchasing time on those corporately controlled airwaves.



*I never made such a claim!*

You just got finished insulting me by accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and follow it up by *knowingly twisting* what I say?!?!?!?

Let me make it clear- my point is that in this age of newspapers, public libraries and the internet that anyone is able to get their message out to be seen by others. It may not be as widespread a message as some would like, but no one is suppressed by others such as the government.

And since you were the one to start mentioning documents relating to the founding of the American government, where in the Constitution of the United States is there _any_ mention of how private citizens are required to work for the common good? There seems to be no mention at all to back up your theories about what people are required to do for others. However, I _can_ find a reference to the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not defined, but some people get pleasure is gaining profit. It may not fit your lifestyle or definition, but no one gave anyone the right to tell others how they should get their form of pleasure. So yes, people are quite free to work for thier corporate profits rather than what you believe to be the common good.

I also find in the constitution specific prohibitions against the goverment passing any law to restrict the freedom of speech. If congress passes a law that would deny a liscense to anyone who does not agree to work for what they feel to be the common good, then that is a restriction of others ability to free speech.

If you will not debate me honestly and twist what I say I see little reason to continue this conversation. Good night sir!


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2007)

Deleted.


----------

