The "Fairness Doctrine"

[michaeledward]

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?

snot-nosed reporters aiding the enemy.

Are you really trying to blame that accusation on me?

Wow.

 

[Jade Tigress]

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]

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 governmentsays 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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

* 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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Deleted.