longeyes
member
"Fairness" is LeftSpeak for "our way of thinking or else."
It's not about fair, it's about free.
It's not about fair, it's about free.
Dems to renew push for "Fairness Doctrine" (Fred Thompson is now a real threat)
- Thread starter Skibane
- Start date
- Status
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Astounding, but true.
Dravur
Member
Who wants to bet that..
PBS, CBS, CNN et al will be considered fair and balalnced by the new Thought Police.
PBS, CBS, CNN et al will be considered fair and balalnced by the new Thought Police.
Patriot-Brewer
Member
WWWAAAAAHHHHHHH...
IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT...
What a bunch of.......well, it would take a while to type all the words I could use to describe the typical bleeding heart socialist, so I'll just stop here.
IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT...
What a bunch of.......well, it would take a while to type all the words I could use to describe the typical bleeding heart socialist, so I'll just stop here.
longeyes
member
There are a lot of canaries in the mineshaft.
New "Fairness Doctrine" legislation is certainly one of the flock.
If any new legislation passes, the era of fun and games, otherwise known as rational political discourse, will be over.
New "Fairness Doctrine" legislation is certainly one of the flock.
If any new legislation passes, the era of fun and games, otherwise known as rational political discourse, will be over.
It's not that simple, folks...
The repeal of the "fairness doctrine" simply put the Murphy's Law version of the Golden Rule in it's place. "He who has the Gold makes the Rules." Remember also that the original doctrine, which is all I've heard anyone argue for, applied only to the public airwaves. We own the broadcast spectrum, and Disney, GE, Viacom, ClearChannel, et al rent them from us. We get to set the terms of the lease. They get to accept those terms or not. Putting a requirement in the lease that some of that time be reserved for the use of people who can't afford to pay the renters (not the owners, that'd be us) for it, when that use is to promote a political viewpoint, is designed to serve the interests of the owners, when those interests might conflict with those of the renters.
This isn't censorship. It's us controlling the use of our stuff. Basic property rights.
It's not in the interest of the public, or of the Republic, that only those with money can be heard. Left to their own devices, as they have been since 1986, the companies who own ABC, CBS, and NBC, will follow the money. That's also why Paris Hilton is considered news. Whether or not the public actually cares (and that's not as clear-cut as you might think, considering the ratings for Micheal Jackson's trial and Katie Couric's brutal faceplant on the CBS Evening News)
Now, if this was about an "equal time" requirement for privately-owned networks, that'd be a whole different argument, but such provisions have consistently failed to pass Constitutional muster in the Courts. As well they should. Likewise, arguments could be made against the whole idea of public ownership of the RF spectrum, and they certainly have been in the past. But that's the way it works here now, and nobody with the power to do anything is talking about changing it. I don't think they should, but they're not going to anyway. It's a different argument.
As to the supposed failure of left-wing talk radio, I think the (very conservative) execs at ClearChannel would love to hear from you about that. They think they're making money. If they're wrong, please let them know. Air America syndicated content, and did a decent job of it, but they were also running a business, and they were terrible at that, which is why they went bankrupt. The content was selling. The managers were idiots. The hosts (the popular ones, at least) found other deals, and are still selling their product to radio stations. They just have a different middleman. The product is selling, which you'd expect, given the overwhelming preponderance of conservative radio talk-shows (around 11-1, IIRC), far in excess of what the statistical liberal/conservative balance of the population is. If Michael Savage can sell his show in San Francisco (and he does), than there's no reason why Randi Rhodes can't sell hers in San Diego (which she does.) There are a heck of a lot more conservatives in San Diego than there are liberals (yes, there are lots of places in California where that's true.) But there's enough liberals to sustain a talk radio station here for them, owned by ClearChannel no less. That's also a good thing.
And no, I'm not going to pay Omnimedia a royalty for using a common phrase that they think they "own."
--Shannon
The repeal of the "fairness doctrine" simply put the Murphy's Law version of the Golden Rule in it's place. "He who has the Gold makes the Rules." Remember also that the original doctrine, which is all I've heard anyone argue for, applied only to the public airwaves. We own the broadcast spectrum, and Disney, GE, Viacom, ClearChannel, et al rent them from us. We get to set the terms of the lease. They get to accept those terms or not. Putting a requirement in the lease that some of that time be reserved for the use of people who can't afford to pay the renters (not the owners, that'd be us) for it, when that use is to promote a political viewpoint, is designed to serve the interests of the owners, when those interests might conflict with those of the renters.
This isn't censorship. It's us controlling the use of our stuff. Basic property rights.
It's not in the interest of the public, or of the Republic, that only those with money can be heard. Left to their own devices, as they have been since 1986, the companies who own ABC, CBS, and NBC, will follow the money. That's also why Paris Hilton is considered news. Whether or not the public actually cares (and that's not as clear-cut as you might think, considering the ratings for Micheal Jackson's trial and Katie Couric's brutal faceplant on the CBS Evening News)
Now, if this was about an "equal time" requirement for privately-owned networks, that'd be a whole different argument, but such provisions have consistently failed to pass Constitutional muster in the Courts. As well they should. Likewise, arguments could be made against the whole idea of public ownership of the RF spectrum, and they certainly have been in the past. But that's the way it works here now, and nobody with the power to do anything is talking about changing it. I don't think they should, but they're not going to anyway. It's a different argument.
As to the supposed failure of left-wing talk radio, I think the (very conservative) execs at ClearChannel would love to hear from you about that. They think they're making money. If they're wrong, please let them know. Air America syndicated content, and did a decent job of it, but they were also running a business, and they were terrible at that, which is why they went bankrupt. The content was selling. The managers were idiots. The hosts (the popular ones, at least) found other deals, and are still selling their product to radio stations. They just have a different middleman. The product is selling, which you'd expect, given the overwhelming preponderance of conservative radio talk-shows (around 11-1, IIRC), far in excess of what the statistical liberal/conservative balance of the population is. If Michael Savage can sell his show in San Francisco (and he does), than there's no reason why Randi Rhodes can't sell hers in San Diego (which she does.) There are a heck of a lot more conservatives in San Diego than there are liberals (yes, there are lots of places in California where that's true.) But there's enough liberals to sustain a talk radio station here for them, owned by ClearChannel no less. That's also a good thing.
And no, I'm not going to pay Omnimedia a royalty for using a common phrase that they think they "own."
--Shannon
Skibane
Member
If I had a nickle for every time a liberal has used that line, I could fund my own network!
(Why is it that Occam's Razor is virtually unknown in the liberal universe?)That's some first-class rationalizing, right there...
In contrast to dozens of conservative franchises, Air America failed to gain widespread success for the same reasons other liberal franchises have failed to gain widespread success - (1.) lack of a quality product, and (2.) lack of rational, employed listeners.
This is OT, sort of, but
your premise is simply, factually wrong. Stations exist, many in markets where you wouldn't expect them to survive, and are making money for the folks that own them.
At least, that's what the bosses at ClearChannel think. If you know that they're wrong, I'm sure they and their shareholders would appreciate your telling them that they're really losing money when they think they're making it.
The market is there. AirAmerica, Inc. was simply not a well-run business, and paid the price. It takes more than an untapped market to make a profit. It takes business skills that were lacking at AAR. But the content was selling, and continues to sell. Which makes sense, if you think about it. You should be able to sell into a market that nobody else is in. And make money doing it. That the AAR management couldn't do it says a lot more about them than the product, especially considering that the product has outlived them. AAR owned not a single radio station. Advertising and branding aside, they were as much a network as Rush Limbaugh's EIB is.
Oh, and there's no correlation that I'm aware of between political philosophy and employment. So your second point also fails the reality test.
As to the rest of the argument (and the more interesting part, IMHO), given that we're talking about public property, what's wrong with the public (through our Legislators, it's a Republic after all) controlling the use of it's property? Or, if you don't consider that a relevant part of the discussion, why not?
--Shannon
your premise is simply, factually wrong. Stations exist, many in markets where you wouldn't expect them to survive, and are making money for the folks that own them.
At least, that's what the bosses at ClearChannel think. If you know that they're wrong, I'm sure they and their shareholders would appreciate your telling them that they're really losing money when they think they're making it.
The market is there. AirAmerica, Inc. was simply not a well-run business, and paid the price. It takes more than an untapped market to make a profit. It takes business skills that were lacking at AAR. But the content was selling, and continues to sell. Which makes sense, if you think about it. You should be able to sell into a market that nobody else is in. And make money doing it. That the AAR management couldn't do it says a lot more about them than the product, especially considering that the product has outlived them. AAR owned not a single radio station. Advertising and branding aside, they were as much a network as Rush Limbaugh's EIB is.
Oh, and there's no correlation that I'm aware of between political philosophy and employment. So your second point also fails the reality test.
As to the rest of the argument (and the more interesting part, IMHO), given that we're talking about public property, what's wrong with the public (through our Legislators, it's a Republic after all) controlling the use of it's property? Or, if you don't consider that a relevant part of the discussion, why not?
--Shannon
Where is this content being distributed? Once Air America went off the air after the charity embezzlement scandal, everything pretty much ended . . . unless you are talking about the books and movies that its contributors were offering up prior to Air America.
As for public property, it's one thing to license the air waves and establish a bottom floor for standards. It's quite another to say "if you want to say X, you have to provide someone an opportunity to say Y as well. If you don't, you can't speak your full mind." That's prior restraint on freedom of speech.
On the same AM radio stations that the hosts were on when their shows were syndicated by AAR. The local owners of those stations did not, by and large, change formats when AAR declared bankruptcy. The shows didn't go away. Some did, but their time slots are now being filled by other hosts with a similar point of view.
The extinction of AAR had little effect at the listener end, as AAR owned no radio stations. In markets where the format was making money, it continues to do so.
Back on the core of the topic, I'm not sure that equal-time provisions constitute a restraint of speech. IIRC, the cases where the FCC (among others) have tried to impose equal time regulations on private networks (i.e., cable) were not decided on 1st Amendment grounds, but on the basis of property rights. Which obviously doesn't apply in this case, since the medium where these rules would apply is publicly owned. You're not telling broadcast companies they can't present their points of view, you're saying that, as a condition of their use of the RF spectrum, they must also allot time for other points of view they might not like or agree with. This might be a restraint of the broadcaster's ability to restrain other people's speech, but nobody's shutting them up. If they choose not to provide the time, they are free to present their points of view in media that they own, and nobody's going to tell them not to.
If I made a rule that, if you want to express a political opinion in my house, you have to be quiet and listen to somebody with a different opinion for just as long as you got to speak, you'd have three choices: Follow my rule, keep quiet, or leave. In no way would your 1st Amendment rights be violated.
The RF spectrum is our house. We get to set the rules. The licencees can go along, or go elsewhere.
--Shannon
gc70
Member
The Democratic idea of the Fairness Doctrine is a position statement by Ted Kennedy followed by a counterpoint by John Kerry.
DRZinn
Member
I'd like to know where the idea came from that "the public" owns the airwaves.
Skibane
Member
My premise was not that liberal stations don't exist (after all, even a blind dog occasionally finds a bone!), but rather that they haven't found widespread success - at least not at the scale of any of several dozen conservative franchises.
If the market for liberal talk radio is there - and presumably has been for decades - then why has no one been successful in tapping it?
busy_squirrel
Member
The public doesn't own airwaves. Period.
It DOES control them, but simply controlling (or manipulation) of something doesn't make you own it. The .gov controls through political and military might as people aren't willing to start a firefight over the right to broadcast an idea. But you can bet that if you transmit the wrong message long enough on the wrong frequency, (ignoring fines, generating your own power, etc.) eventually the US gubment will physically stop you from transmitting. That is simply political and military might.
HOWEVER the real issue is what some would call fairness. Fairness Doctrine is not, especially if a private company is granted a license to use the bandwidth. That private company PAID FOR THAT ENTIRE TIME SLOT, so that they could transmit their content, not someone elses. Is this concept of licensing that hard to undestand? It's just free enterprise or capitalism...:banghead:
Let's try a few examples:
Equal funding rules for political campaigns means you can't put a sign on this street corner unless you also put an opposing sign on the same corner OR MORE ACCURATELY, pay the sign printer to print signs for the opposition, then transport the opposition to the same street corner, so they can install their own sign.
Equal usage rules mean that SUVs can only buy as much gas as I can fit in the tank of my econobox hatchback. If they want more gas, they hafta pay for extra and equal gas for me and gas cans so that I can pump the extra gas and put it in my trunk.
'Let's get real folks, this is simply an attempt to force people to hear a view they don't want to listen to. It seems that programming is EXACTLY the correct term.
Last edited:
Silent-Snail
Member
When I first heard "Fairness Doctrine" I thought it was refering to CCW.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Oh, come on, Tube E! By your reasoning, if tomorrow the feds nationalized the country's wood pulp or ink supply, the First amendment would cease applying to newspapers.
Titan6
member
Not too far from here there's a company that has a gold mine on leased public lands. Now I know there is gold there and the government only lets the one company have at it. When do I get my equal share?
Seems to me if the they leased the property (airwaves) from the fed, than they should be allowed to do what they want with it. If I leased property to the democratic party could I go back later and say you can not run your campaign here?
Seems to me if the they leased the property (airwaves) from the fed, than they should be allowed to do what they want with it. If I leased property to the democratic party could I go back later and say you can not run your campaign here?
ZeSpectre
Member
Fairness Doctrine (Just FYI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
longeyes
member
when you hear the word "fairness," reach for your revolver
The "Fairness Doctrine" is about one thing: solidifying the mind-control that the Left has so brilliantly implemented over the last five decades in America (and not just in media). They want to kill talk radio because it represents the voice of the American people, unedited, fully expressed. The Left hates anything interactive; their view of politics is We Speak, You Listen. Conservative talk radio is a huge political threat to the Left and they know it. When and if it is muzzled, this Republic is dead meat.
The "Fairness Doctrine" is about one thing: solidifying the mind-control that the Left has so brilliantly implemented over the last five decades in America (and not just in media). They want to kill talk radio because it represents the voice of the American people, unedited, fully expressed. The Left hates anything interactive; their view of politics is We Speak, You Listen. Conservative talk radio is a huge political threat to the Left and they know it. When and if it is muzzled, this Republic is dead meat.
DRZinn
Member
It was a rhetorical question. I don't give a damn who said the public owns the airwaves, or how long ago he said it. It simply isn't so.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Lemmee see. The dems want to control the Second Amendment rights of Americans, and not the First Amendment. Any odds on the other eight?
Socialist Suckweasels.
One more thing, the FCC should charge CBS, NBC, and ABC as well as other "free" stations for their use of our collective airwaves.
One more. Dump NPR. NOW.
Socialist Suckweasels.
One more thing, the FCC should charge CBS, NBC, and ABC as well as other "free" stations for their use of our collective airwaves.
One more. Dump NPR. NOW.
Glockfan.45
member
Um.......First Amendment anybody?
- Status