Talk Radio - No Fair!!!

[Slim]

Apparently the free market isn't fair when it comes to talk radio, but seemed to be working quite well for the print media and network television. The majority of the content and opinions expressed on talk radio has a more conservative tone than print and television for sure, and this just isn't fair. To fix this injustice, let's pass some laws!
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...doctrine/9684/

So why is the left, sorry..."progressives"...why are they and a good number of politicians on both sides of the isle...why are they all so afraid of talk radio that they now feel the need to legislate content?

Maybe because the illegal immigrant amnesty legislation is having a hard time going through due in part to an enormous amount of pressure being applied by people sharing some of the same views being expressed on some conservative talk radio programs? Since talk radio is much more interactive than print and TV, it's very refreshing for some to know that they're not alone in their opinions. But these listeners are obviously so stupid and gullible that they need to be protected and fed alternative viewpoints...the same ones that they had decided to tune out by turning off the TV and choosing to use the NYTimes as nothing more than something for Fido to pee on. Please, someone save us from our own stupidity.

I found the irony sweet in that in my area, AirAmerica was replaced with a 100% spanish speaking format. Hasta la vittoria!

I guess the first amendment and a free market only counts when no one is actually listening.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Slim

I guess the first amendment and a free market only counts when no one is actually listening.

nah, it's just that sophomoric babbling doesn't count as protected speech these days;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/fr...ech/index.html

[jeff]

What's funny/ironic is that now the Republicans are finding talk radio dangerous - viz: Lott's recent remarks. So, Slim, don't blame it on those gosh-darned liberals, when it's your side of the aisle seeing that their hands can get bitten too.

BTW: "vittoria" is Italian, not Spanish. More proof, I guess, that so many of us in the US are monolingual

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

What's funny/ironic is that now the Republicans are finding talk radio dangerous - viz: Lott's recent remarks. So, Slim, don't blame it on those gosh-darned liberals, when it's your side of the aisle seeing that their hands can get bitten too.

BTW: "vittoria" is Italian, not Spanish. More proof, I guess, that so many of us in the US are monolingual

Lott is an idiot, and I specifically said pols on both sides. And if you think it's not a majority of lefties/dems pushing the "fairness doctrine" idea, you're obviously fooling yourself.

The current incarnation of repubs are NOT representative of all my political views. But, they are a lot closer to them than the alternative. Total Douche Party, or Turd Sandwich party. Pick one, they both suck.

You may have uncovered proof that someone living in the US doesn't speak spanish perhaps, but thats about it. Something which is actually becoming more and more unusual these days.

[jeff]

Thank you for your mature and carefully reasoned critique of politics, and your insightful analysis of modern language. You've really helped to raise the level of discourse.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

Thank you for your mature and carefully reasoned critique of politics, and your insightful analysis of modern language. You've really helped to raise the level of discourse.

No sweat. And thank you for your ever so predictable, pompous-a$$, sarcastic stamp of disapproval. It's what keeps me coming back!

[Have At You]

An effort to satisfy both Slim and Jeff, and re-start the conversation:

The Fairness Doctrine, for those who aren't old enough to remember, was an FCC rule that made it mandatory for broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance." The rule was discarded during the Reagan years.

The nostalgic view is that the Fairness Doctrine made for more accurate and complete reporting.

In reality, however, the Doctrine was anything but Fair in its use. It was used by both parties to bully their critics. A major unintended consequence of the Doctrine was that it actually stifled discussion of controversial issues, rather than encouraging it. Or rather, I should say that it was a major intended consequence.

Bill Ruder, an Assistant Secretary of Commerce under JFK, stated to CBS News that "our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

When the Republicans came to power under Richard Nixon, they quickly adopted the same strategy. The GOP routinely filed challenges against broadcasters whose reporting upset Nixon's White House. Given the paranoia of that administration, perhaps "routinely" is an understatement. Just during the antiwar demonstrations of October 1969 alone, Nixon issued orders 21 times to aides to take "specific action relating to what he considered unfair network news coverage."

Even without overt government hostility, the Fairness Doctrine was such a nightmare to comply with, that news providers simply backed away from anything controversial, to avoid having to deal with the Doctrine. Liberal journalist Nat Hentoff recalls that when he worked at a Boston radio station, "the front office panicked" whenever a complaint was filed. "The brass summoned all of us and commanded that from then on, we ourselves would engage in no controversy at the station."

Given that the Democratic Congress now boasts approval ratings even below those of President Bush, one can understand the interest of some of its leaders to quell controversy. But for the rest of us, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would lead to a more homogenous and timid media culture. In other words, exactly the kind of climate that incumbents of both parties find congenial and easy to live with.

[jeff]

No sweat. And thank you for your ever so predictable, pompous-a$$, sarcastic stamp of disapproval. It's what keeps me coming back!

Any time, Slim. I wouldn't want my disapproval to be so subtle you would miss it.

For cryin' out loud, Slim: your first recourse is to attribute policies to the factions you hate, like in this thread (why you started it in the first place) or in the Virginia Tech shooting thread (where you nonsensically blamed the ACLU for stuff that came from their opponents), and here, your only rhetoric is childish insult "Total Douche Party, or Turd Sandwich party". Wow, what a grownup you are. And you wonder why I curl my lip?

[jeff]

Props to Have At You for an insightful post that intelligently summarizes the issue.

[Philistine]

From the initial article:

This is a very complicated bill," said Feinstein. "Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty -- we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system."

It's kind of a side issue to this thread--but I think politicians blaming constituents for lack of knowledge of bills is hypocritical on a number of fronts.

Firstly, the politicans generally make little, if any, effort to inform consitutents of the actual content of bills--and secondly, oftentimes the politicans themselves are ignorant of the fine points of the bills, having abdicated to their staffs the fine points and details.

--Philistine

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Philistine

and secondly, oftentimes the politicans themselves are ignorant of the fine points of the bills, having abdicated to their staffs the fine points and details.

politicians don't read the bills they vote on, they vote based on their party and/or people who read it and summarize it for them. otherwise, we wouldn't need to pass legislation like the RTBA:
http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


From the link in the threadstart:

Originally Posted by UPI

Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine
WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is "looking at" the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters.

Which begets some questions:
1. Why was this "fairness doctrine" scrapped?
2. Why was it started in the first place?
3. Where there any good reasons for it in the beginning, which had disappeared when it was scrapped?
4. If so, have such reasons resurfaced?
5. Are the possible drawbacks with a fairness doctrine maneagble, and smaller than its pros?

Originally Posted by UPI

Feinstein, speaking on "Fox News Sunday" with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said talk radio in particular has presented a one-sided view of immigration reform legislation being considered by the Senate.

The fact that Feinstein chose to speak to Fox does say something. Anyway, Feinstein and Lott are about the last people who should complain of not getting to have their opinion heard. There are some 299 million americans who would have a much difficult time in getting attention.

Originally Posted by UPI

U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices.

Why? Some 47% (IIRC) of the voters sided with Kerry last time around, so there should be a market for non-conservative talk radio. Or can someone claim that the talk radio media format is inherently conducive to expressing conservative views, but not to liberal views?

Originally Posted by UPI

Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was "looking at it."

"I remember when there was a fairness doctrine," she said, "and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

Would not such a revival take a long time, and cost a lot of political capital needed elsewhere?

Furthermore, are there not a lot of thinkable loopholes/workarounds in regard to any legally enshrined fairness doctrine? How about presenting as an opposing view, a speaker who has a even more far-out opinion than the one presented by the tendential talk radio show host?

For example: A pro-capital punishment radio host could present as the opposing view someone who wishes to reinstate CP for petty theft. Then, two opinions are presented, and the host gets to look more mainstream in comparison. On the other side of the aisle, a pro-choice radio host could field an opposing view by someone who states that abortion should be free and legal throughout 3 trimester, on the wish of the woman with no questions asked.

Are such loopholes to be plugged by having some kind of only-no-nutcases-on-radio law? Would that not lead to a lot of red tape, and lots of 1st amendment issues?

Is it not better for Feinstein&Lott to forward their opinions in all the fora presently available to them? Why not use parts of their reelection war chests to pay for political ads? Then they can craft the message to their hearts content! If they do not want to spend money, there must be lots of talk show hosts willing to take them on on a moment´s notice!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Slim]

Then why all the sudden interest in Fairness Doctrine?

The issue is that so called "progressives" are in a tizzy because they are failing to make any inroads in talk radio, and based on what is happening with the Illegal Alien Amnesty legislation, they are now more than ever aware of the influence conservative leaning listeners can have on their representatives. AirAmerica was the "progressive" answer to conservative talk radio programming, and it has been a miserable failure. They cant compete on content and marketshare, so they seeking out ways to try and legislate their way into the market and control the content of what is broadcast.

If not, then why all the sudden interest in talk radio, and the Fairness Doctrine by "progressive" thinktanks such as this?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...talk_radio.pdf

Quote:

"Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters."

Rather then letting the market decide what they want to listen to, we'll have some government agency determine what is "important".

So where is the concern over print media and television, the two "progressive" dominated media outlets?

http://gopandcollege.blogspot.com/20...a-is-bias.html

Radio programmers are interested in ratings. They wont broadcast content with no listeners because they can't sell advertising. The goal put forth here is to regulate content in the name of public interest. The problem is that radio is a very, very competitive business. Content regulation as suggested in this report would kill the conservative dominated talk radio market, much to the glee of "progressives" since they cant compete in an open and unregulated marketplace.

When 3 tv stations, 2 radio stations and a newspaper were the only game in town for information sources, regulation may have had it's place. With the internet and 500 channels on cable and Sat, we're a long way from that now.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Slim

Then why all the sudden interest in Fairness Doctrine?

My guess:

(a) For the Democrats: this is something they've wanted to do for a long time, to put a stick in the side of Limbaugh, Savage, and their ilk. Why now? Because this is the first time in quite a while they've had a majority to make such a desire feasible.

(b) For the Republicans: they're getting nailed because of the immigration legislation and Iraq, and for the first time in a while are in the minority. So, for the first time in quite a while the status quo isn't what they want. Shoe is on the other foot.

(c) Howard Stern.

Interesting article at The Heritage Foundation indicates how this is a bilateral political issue rather than something that can be stuck on "progressives" http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm1472.cfm

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

Any time, Slim. I wouldn't want my disapproval to be so subtle you would miss it.

For cryin' out loud, Slim: your first recourse is to attribute policies to the factions you hate, like in this thread (why you started it in the first place) or in the Virginia Tech shooting thread (where you nonsensically blamed the ACLU for stuff that came from their opponents), and here, your only rhetoric is childish insult "Total Douche Party, or Turd Sandwich party". Wow, what a grownup you are. And you wonder why I curl my lip?

Heh,heh...I'm the Budweiser in a can at your cocktail party.

"Pffftt". Here, take a swig and relax.

[jeff]

Bud? You kidding? When I drink beer I don't drink that crap!

Naughtly Slim, go put that beer (or at least the "Pffffft" sound) back in the :Public Universities and Creationism" thread where you found it!

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

Interesting article at The Heritage Foundation indicates how this is a bilateral political issue rather than something that can be stuck on "progressives" http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm1472.cfm

Huh? The conclusion is that it's a very bad idea. Meanwhile Pelosi, Feinstein, Clinton, Boxer, and the majority of the "progressive" think tankers are all on board to fire it up again. There is a historical reference to Nixon. That makes it bi-partisan? Dont think so.

Nope. No sir. It's pretty clear whats going on, who is behind it, and why.

[jeff]

Of course it's bipartisan. They say it's a bad idea, and illustrate why with abuses from both sides of the aisle.

[telkanuru]

As a general rule, giving equal voice to both sides of an argument is stupid. Many points do not have a legitimate counter argument, and it leads to idiotic ideas such as teaching creationisim in a science classroom because stuff just has to be balanced.

Jeff, really, when did slim come to these forums to actually consider the view point of the other side, instead of spouting overused talking points?