Talk Radio - No Fair!!!

[Slim]

Context is all, Slim. When I refer to 'misuse of "fairness" in school curriculum', I mean 'misuse of "fairness" in school curriculum'. I've already referred to bipartisan abuse of the FCC-style fairness doctrine, but you were too busy to notice.

To your last point: I see nothing wrong with teaching your kids about the Koran, provided they are not being taught it's holy truth. Which takes us back to the creationists who do want their religion taught as the holy truth in the public schools. I know it's a different topic, but I'm expecting you to brace yourself enough to hold two different thoughts in your head at the same time.

Jessica: that study explains a lot, doesn't it...

Peter - good catch!

Hehe...good thread hijack.

Context is everything, Jeff.

Why do the creationists seem to quickly become the focal point of every counter-conservative argument here? Seems akin to Godwin's law or something. Tsk, Tsk...I expected more from you Jeffy. Now, back on point please.

Note to Jeff: Not all conservatives are creationists. Repeat. Not all conservatives are creationists.

[jeff]

No threadjack? Spoilsport!

[telkanuru]

Your ability to think that an example is in fact the centeral goal of my argument is increadible.

And since apparently I can't say this in a way you'll understand, I have no desire to see it legislated that all sides of an argument get equal air time, since not all sides of an argument are actually valid.

[Slim]

Your ability to think that an example is in fact the centeral goal of my argument is increadible.

And since apparently I can't say this in a way you'll understand, I have no desire to see it legislated that all sides of an argument get equal air time, since not all sides of an argument are actually valid.

Right on bro. Truth is liberal.

Thanks for the new tag line.

[Inquartata]

Of Not all opinions should hold equal weight or be given equal (or, in some cases, any) time or consideration.


My main point is that most news programs (notable exception being fox) are falling over themselves to at least seem like their giving voice to all sides of an argument, even if one side of an argument is an idiot. Places who don't do this often are criticized for a "liberal bias".

This is a tough issue.

Of course, you are right that not all opinions hold equal weight. As an extreme example I offer the opinions of NAMBLA members about the propriety of adults having sex with children, vs. the opinions of, oh, just about everyone else in society. The problem arises when flawed human beings take it on themselves to decide whose opinions are those which should be given less weight on less obvious matters.

Take for instance something like gun control. We may have a news organization which decides to give equal consideration to the expressed views of those on both sides of the issue, as a matter of "fairness". This however may offer only the appearance of fairness if the decision-makers in the news organization have their own personal biases. Then you may get pieces like one I once watched, which presented itself as an impartially moderated debate between a gun control proponent and a gun control opponent. It looked fair enough on the surface, but once you did a content analysis you found that the moderator asked harder questions of the gun control opponent, interrupted him more often, cut his replies short more frequently and generally gave more air time to the gun control proponent. This is even worse than open bias, because it is subtly deceptive and more apt to convince the unwary illegitimately.

So who gets to decide, in marginal areas of public debate where it is not immediately clear that one side is loony, whose opinions should be given more weight, whose less, and whose omitted altogether? How do you avoid giving that gatekeeping power to people with conscious or unconscious biases themselves?

News Flash: the truth has a liberal bias.

If that's a "news flash", it must have been one on The Onion.

Yeah, I'd wager he's wrong too.

Well, I just spent about 20 unsuccessful minutes trying to find anything on the question. Apparently either no one has thought to measure unemployment by political identification, or it's considered politically incorrect to do so, or my serach fu is too weak.

However, I will note that it is widely recognized that unemployment tends to be highest in segments of the work force which are also traditional bastions of Democratic Party voting, eg among blacks, Latinos, women, immigrants, etc.

[academe]

Then you may get pieces like one I once watched, which presented itself as an impartially moderated debate between a gun control proponent and a gun control opponent. It looked fair enough on the surface, but once you did a content analysis you found that the moderator asked harder questions of the gun control opponent, interrupted him more often, cut his replies short more frequently and generally gave more air time to the gun control proponent. This is even worse than open bias, because it is subtly deceptive and more apt to convince the unwary illegitimately

Of course, you were completely unbiased in your content analysis...

[Inquartata]

Yes. I recorded it, and played it back repeatedly, timing things like how long the debaters were allowed to speak, how long the moderator spoke to each, and so on. I counted "loaded" words, number of interruptions, etc. This is pretty hard stuff to find a bias in, unless you think a stop watch is inherently partisan.

Also notable was the fact that when the moderator would interrupt a response to ask a clarifying question, if the gun control proponent continued to speak the moderator would relent and let him, waiting until he'd finished to repeat the clarifying question. When he interrupted the gun control opponent thus and that person tried to continue on, the moderator kept pressing, in effect shutting down the response until he got his point in RIGHT NOW.

When Pro Gun would attack some point of Anti Gun directly, the moderator would interrupt to chide him for it. When Anti Gun attacked some point of Pro Gun directly, the moderator let it go on. Only when Anti Gun tried to answer the criticism in turn would it be "let's try to stay on track" or "we don't have much time" from Moderator...

None of this was immediately noticeable on watching the piece straight through, even to a person with an opinion of his own, viz myself. It looked fairly even-handed until one began deconstructing the conversation and measuring indicators.

And I am fairly sure that the moderator was not deliberately taking sides, and that he was trying to be impartial. You can imagine how much worse it gets when a moderator makes no such efforts ( cough, Bill Moyers ).

[Slim]

With the defeat of the Illegal Alien Amnesty legislation, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the "fairness doctrine" rhetoric is going to hit high gear PDQ.

Oh, and in all honesty, most of you were right. Bush is indeed an idiot.

[jeff]

Whoa, Slim - hang on there, a bit. When James and I say we sometimes agree with Inq, that's one thing. But if you start agreeing with us on such a key judgement, well, it affects the laws of physics that govern the universe!

[Slim]

Whoa, Slim - hang on there, a bit. When James and I say we sometimes agree with Inq, that's one thing. But if you start agreeing with us on such a key judgement, well, it affects the laws of physics that govern the universe!

What can I say.

[jessicasimpson]

However, I will note that it is widely recognized that unemployment tends to be highest in segments of the work force which are also traditional bastions of Democratic Party voting, eg among blacks, Latinos, women, immigrants, etc.

Sorry, but most Latinos are catholic, anti abortion, and anti gay, and alot vote these values. If most Blacks, latinos, women, immigrants, etc. voted democrat, there would be no republicans in federal office.

[Inquartata]

Where did I say anything about "most"?

Only tiny percentages of any population segment bother to vote. All one needs is a preponderance of the ones who DO vote...and that is the case for the Democratic Party with the black and Hispanic demographics. It's a byword with pollsters.

Since 9-11 we have had an upsurge in the "security mom" phenomenon which has led many women to vote Republican, but I am not convinced that that is going to have legs in the long term...

To the groups I mentioned earlier I will add union members. Since unions foment unemployment by artificially restricting the supply of labor, and unions tend overwhelmingly to support liberal candidates, this too is a demographic in which unemployment is probably higher amongst liberals.

[Philistine]

{snip}
However, I will note that it is widely recognized that unemployment tends to be highest in segments of the work force which are also traditional bastions of Democratic Party voting, eg among blacks, Latinos, women, immigrants, etc.

Not women. Women's % unemployment is less than men's.

Numbers are (in %'s):

Total 4.5
Men 4.0
Women 3.8
Teenagers 15.7
White 3.9
Black 8.5
Hispanic 5.8

BLS May 2007 numbers

While Black and Hispanic numbers are higher than Whites, demographically, whites in general who are unemployed far outnumber unemployed blacks and hispanics. (Not that this necessarily means that unemployed whites follow general demographic trends on political affiliation).

Perhaps it's like the saying "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has been indicted." Now--a liberal is a conservative who has lost his job....



--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Not women. Women's % unemployment is less than men's.

Again, overall numbers mask significant disparities in subcategories. The unemployment rate for white men and white women in 2007 so far has been either identical or nearly identical...and whites are still the majority population, if only just. Among blacks, the rate is much higher for women than for men, which skews the average.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

Moreover, the labor force participation rate is much higher for women than for men. The official unemployment rate doesn't reflect this...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t13.htm

[Philistine]

Again, overall numbers mask significant disparities in subcategories. The unemployment rate for white men and white women in 2007 so far has been either identical or nearly identical...and whites are still the majority population, if only just. Among blacks, the rate is much higher for women than for men, which skews the average.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

Either you're misreading the table or I am--but it seems that the unemployment rate for black men is 8.2% and black women is 6.8%.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Yeah, sorry, I worded that backward.

[Drifter]

Just to clear up a huge mistaken assumption that literally every person who spouts off about how this issue is a 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of radiostations to broadcast what they want to' issue, ALL broadcast channels in this country are publicly held in trust for the US population by the government. NO radio station or television station or cell phone company or anyone else owns the frequencies they are broadcasting on. They are leasing them from the American people (the public) by way of the government. The broadcast spectrum is offically classified as a natural resource that is owned by the American people. That is the reason the fairness doctrine existed previously and why many feel that the Regan administration striking it down in 1985 was the equivalent of giving public parks over to developers to do with as they please.

For those that want to geek out about broadcast spectrum:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

[Inquartata]

I'm sure the Doctrine was a good idea in theory, but like so many laws it soon ran afoul of the law of unintended consequences...

[Drifter]

I'm sure the Doctrine was a good idea in theory, but like so many laws it soon ran afoul of the law of unintended consequences...

What unintendend consequences? 1985 is the last time it was in use. A policy requiring companies that lease a public resource to service all people equally seems to be pretty in line with the American way.

[Inquartata]

What unintendend consequences?

See Have At You's post on the first page of the thread, and some of the discussion on the second...

A policy requiring companies that lease a public resource to service all people equally seems to be pretty in line with the American way.

Yes, as I said, it sounds great in theory, but had unintended consequences.

Fairness is one of those concepts which, like unicorns and pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, is very appealing to us but really exists only in fantasy. Trying to reify it with an actual law was laden with good intentions but seemed only to nudge us farther toward the unfortunate destination of the road paved with same...

If that sounds unduly sour and cynical, note my title.