Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What has recently been put forth called "a fairness doctrine", which previously applied to other media requiring that all "viewpoints" have equal opportunity in media time or print space to espouse their respective viewpoints ....
Hmmm. Another talk-radio junkie? The Fairness Doctrine never applied to print media or to cable broadcasters. It applied only to over-the-air radio and TV licenseholders in defining a public obligation undertaken through acceptance of a specially granted gate-keeper monopoly over access to and use of the public airwaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit
Is now being converted to a "shut down" policy on the conservative AM radio talk shows that have a viewpoint which disagrees with a certain select annointed few who would choose to regulate what news and information we can listen to in an otherwise free market.
This is a product of your, or someone else's, imagination. If the Fairness Doctrine were reimposed and an over-the-air station wanted to broadcast three prime-time hours of Rush, it would be completely free to do so, but it would also have to broadcast three prime-time hours of responsible spokespersons for viewpoints different from those of Rush. If the station were not willing to comply with such balance requirements and wanted simply to broadcast Rush 24/7, it would remain free to do that also, but it would have to employ a different medium (cable, internet, etc.) from the public airwaves.
Last edited by saganista; 07-08-2007 at 01:57 PM..
Its real simple. Radio airwaves are publicly financed. So the liberals want there to be a balance of what can be broadcast. This however, does not apply to publicly financed TV stations, because they are mostly liberal, something the liberals aren't interested in interrupting.
I don't think either should be regulated. The market will regulate them according to how well people like them. Just ask Katie Couric at CBS Evening News how much being liked counts when the market decides your position.
This issue is completely one of freedom of speech.
Standing on a public sidewalk and orating is an issue of free speech. Being handed in public trust an unfettered control over the most lucrative and powerful means of mass communication in the world is a great deal more complex than the issue of free speech alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
If the situation were reversed and conservative talk radio was the sinking ship, this wouldn't even be an issue.
There is little evidence to suggest that. You have the whole pie at the moment and don't think even that is enough. And why do you think Reagan scuttled the Fairness Doctrine to begin with? The somewhat simplistic answer would be that he wanted to loose the hounds of the emerging right-wing propaganda machine. These dogs need room to run...let's give them the whole darned spectrum. Fairness and balance be dammed...all us all the time...
Pundits like Sean Hannity, "Uncle Phil" Valentine, and Neil Boortz are successful because they address hot issues using logic and reason. They don't try to tug at anyone's heartstrings or blame society for America's woes; they offer logical and pragmatic solutions to the problems of today, such as the war in Iraq and illegal immigration.
As I mentioned earlier, liberals have tried to balance out talk radio in the past by filling the airwaves with their own garbage, and people didn't tune in. Why can't they step up to the plate and give us something worth listening to, instead of trying to take what we ARE listening to off the air?
Very revealing.
Conservatives = logical and pragmatic
Liberals = garbage
A little biased are we?
(Disclaimer: I despise all talk radio. From Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes. They exist for one reason: To take your money. There are plenty of legitimate conservative and liberal journalists, none of which can be found on AM radio.)
As much as I dislike generalizations i'm going to do one now.
This disscussion about re-installing the fairness doctrine is just another example of people trying to legislate what they otherwise can't achieve with market or public opinion. Air America most recently failed in spite of massive influx of support money.. The reason is very simple...no market for the presented product. I do happen to think there is a "liberal" market for talk radio, but the host talent thus far offered up has been pretty pathetic.
The fairness doctrine and other transparent attempts to "level the playing field" in all things is never the correct approach.
This is suppose to be a country of equal oppertunity...NOT equal results. Social engineering that attempts to accomplish the latter always ends up causing more harm than good.
As much as I dislike generalizations i'm going to do one now. This disscussion about re-installing the fairness doctrine is just another example of people trying to legislate what they otherwise can't achieve with market or public opinion. Air America most recently failed in spite of massive influx of support money.. The reason is very simple...no market for the presented product. I do happen to think there is a "liberal" market for talk radio, but the host talent thus far offered up has been pretty pathetic. The fairness doctrine and other transparent attempts to "level the playing field" in all things is never the correct approach. This is suppose to be a country of equal oppertunity...NOT equal results. Social engineering that attempts to accomplish the latter always ends up causing more harm than good.
You know, some version of the Fairness Doctrine had been in effect as a regulatory process for fifty years in this country before Reagan scrapped it in 1987. Political speech had been alive and well throughout that period. In fact, many would say that we had a far more reasoned and reasonable politics in those times. The Congress has twice re-enacted the Fairness Doctrine as law, but it was vetoed both times -- first by Reagan, and then by Bush-1. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with Air America (which first went on the air in 2004) or Rush Limbaugh (who first came to ABC in 1988).
just thought I'd post a link to the definition of neoconservative.. Enlightenment can be good thing.
The Enlightenment certainly was a very good thing. For instance, it gave rise to the liberal traditions upon which this nation was founded. Meanwhile, this is a pretty barebones definition, as the word 'neocon' is used in common parlance (such as on bulletin boards) simply as a short-form stand-in for a generally agreed upon set of complex people and policies (most of which in this case are disasters). The word 'liberal' is also often used in such environments in much the same short-form manner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
