The W
Views: 99027137
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.9.14 0250
The W - Current Events & Politics - For the ACLUites
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(1797 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3798 days
Last activity: 2864 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
This is a question for the ACLU members here: Do you support the attempted reinstating of the fairness doctrine? Isn't such a law a direct violation of the first amendment?
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#2 Posted on
I hadn't heard anything about this. Do you have a link or anything for the details on this. Right on the surface of it I would say I'm generally opposed to such a thing being passed, but would like to see all the info before I could make a full response.



Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2999 days
Last activity: 213 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Um, yeah. You're not talking about the rollback of the FCC's proposed new media ownership regulations, are you? That has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine per se.

Radio and television differ from other media (print, the Internet, etc.) in a very significant way -- they are _limited_ resources due to regulation. Anyone can start up a newspaper, a magazine, or a web site blasting the target of their choice; if you want to broadcast over the radio or television airwaves, however, your signal had better reach no more than five feet, or the FCC will bring a shithammer down upon you.

The FCC already regulates radio and TV content concerning "obscenity" and "indecency," and artificially limits the number of permitted stations in an area and how strong their signals can be. Eliminate THOSE restrictions, and I'm more likely to get on board with avoiding _political_ content management.




"When WCW tries to be racy, it's generally about as light-heartedly entertaining as watching a man rape a woman in a chicken yard." -- Dark Cheetah
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3798 days
Last activity: 2864 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
What I'm speaking of is the law that was abolished in 87 that basically requires any opinionated Radio show/TV show to provide exact amounts of time to opposite viewpoints. It sounds nice in practice, but such restrictions really limit options in the long run. Before this doctrine was eliminated, there were only 75 radio AM talk stations, and now there are over 1300. Let me give you an example of the fairness doctrine: Rush Limbaugh has a 3 hour show in the morning that 20 million people listen to. If someone calls up and claims that it's unbalanced, the station would either have to give them specific allotted time to respond or possibly lose their license. There is no shortage of viewpoint in the media today. If you want conservative, you can check out Fox News or listen to some of the conservative radio pundits. If you want Liberal, you can check out CNN, or any of the 3 networks. The elimination of the fairness doctrine lead to a huge diversification of ideas being shared on the radio, and frankly it reaks of politicians passing laws to silence their critics. In 1993 it was only Liberals doing it to try to silence Rush, but now conservatives are in on it too, which is very scary.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Is Rush Limbaugh really so scary that we have to silence him and thrash the constitution?
antizeus
Linguica








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3996 days
Last activity: 3996 days
#5 Posted on
The airwaves are considered a public resource. The government grants certain groups a monopoly on broadcasting over these frequencies (in a certain area), and is thus justified in imposing regulations upon those monopolies.

I'm all for removing such regulations on the broadcasters as long as I'm allowed to broadcast on those frequencies. But this won't happen because the resulting chaos would severly limit the usefulness of broadcasting.

By the way, I do not consider CNN to be "liberal", except maybe in the limited US sense of "liberal", which is considered "conservative" in most of the industrialized world. When Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are regular guests on CNN, then I might change my mind.



Check to see if this page is HTML Compliant.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3798 days
Last activity: 2864 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
When did Liberal change to leftist? John F Kennedy used to be considered liberal. By your standards, he would be a right wing zealot today. It is just so laughable that people on the left go crazy over Fox News when conservatives have had to deal with CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC for years. The reason fox news is so terrible to you is that you're used to having the news swing in your favor, so it's twice as bad for you. It's like saying "until Fox News has Milton Friedman on regularly I won't believe they're conservative." Noam Chomsky is not a Liberal, he's a leftist. The difference used to be more distinct. The "fariness doctrine" is just a way of politicians passing laws to silence critics. By the way, what would happen to the New York Times if this was passed?
antizeus
Linguica








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3996 days
Last activity: 3996 days
#7 Posted on
I don't consider JFK to be either "liberal" or a "right wing zealot". I consider him pretty much indistinguishable from most recent presidents. He did, after all, launch Operation MONGOOSE (a large terrorist operation aimed at Cuba), and COINTELPRO activities really took off under his administation. There is a popular image of him as being The Great Liberal, which is reinforced by the mass media, but I'm not buying it.

Frankly, I don't see the point of your New York Times example. As far as I know, the New York Times is not broadcast over the airwaves.

P.S. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's pretty rude.

(ed: spelyng)

(edited by antizeus on 13.9.03 1141)


Check to see if this page is HTML Compliant.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#8 Posted on
    Originally posted by Michrome
    When did Liberal change to leftist? John F Kennedy used to be considered liberal. By your standards, he would be a right wing zealot today. It is just so laughable that people on the left go crazy over Fox News when conservatives have had to deal with CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC for years. The reason fox news is so terrible to you is that you're used to having the news swing in your favor, so it's twice as bad for you. It's like saying "until Fox News has Milton Friedman on regularly I won't believe they're conservative." Noam Chomsky is not a Liberal, he's a leftist. The difference used to be more distinct. The "fariness doctrine" is just a way of politicians passing laws to silence critics. By the way, what would happen to the New York Times if this was passed?


And Fox News is not conservative, it is reactionary. In fact, Fox News having Milton Freedman on might make them a little more credible. They have swung so far to the right, that most conservatives I know dismiss Fox News.

CNN, at best, may have some liberal leanings, but they (and the other networks, for that matter), are more middle road than anything else. Rarely do they go out on a limb with regards to editorials or stories that will really criticize any administration. They are by no means the other end of the spectrum compared to Fox News.

JFK was a liberal on social issues - and in the middle of the civil right's movement it would seem like an appropriate position to take. But you'd have a very hard tmie arguing that JFK's foreign policy was all that liberal.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees

"Finally, a candidate who can explain the current administration's position on civil liberties in the original German."
- Bill Maher on Arnold Schwarzenneger

"You know, I'm a follower of American politics."
- President George W. Bush, 8 Aug 2003
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2953 days
Last activity: 2950 days
#9 Posted on
I hate when the conservatives try to argue about this.



Weekly Visitor - PSSSSHAW!

Jersey Is Dead - New Old Stuff!!!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1235 days
Last activity: 1032 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29


WOW! I can put up a bunch of horseshit and dismiss all sorts of stuff...

(oy)

EDIT: Like the protesters in Cancun; why don't they show the whole picture from this massive protest:


(edited by Grimis on 15.9.03 0809)


vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2999 days
Last activity: 213 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by Michrome
    The elimination of the fairness doctrine lead to a huge diversification of ideas being shared on the radio, and frankly it reaks of politicians passing laws to silence their critics. In 1993 it was only Liberals doing it to try to silence Rush, but now conservatives are in on it too, which is very scary.
    ...
    Is Rush Limbaugh really so scary that we have to silence him and thrash the constitution?


Once more, with feeling: What are you talking about? What conservatives are taking action? To what, specifically, are you referring? What in particular is threatening Rush Limbaugh?

Please provide a link or something that describes this current and imminent threat to airwave freedom, so we can discuss it vaguely rationally.






"When WCW tries to be racy, it's generally about as light-heartedly entertaining as watching a man rape a woman in a chicken yard." -- Dark Cheetah
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#12 Posted on
Here's a link:

http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20030606/NEWS/206060340/1003/NEWS01

From the article:

"Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, said he is drafting a bill that would include restoring the Fairness Doctrine, which would require TV and radio stations to provide discussion of conflicting views on some public issues. It would also cap radio ownership and bring the limit on TV households back to 35 percent."

This apparently (though it has been in the works for a while) led to a editorial last Friday in the Wall Street Journal with a warning that Republicans may unwittingly help such legislation pass, which in turn led to a big rant on the Rush Limbaugh program on the same day. And that in turn probably led to this thread.




Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 72 days
Last activity: 2 days
#13 Posted on
And, here's the WSJ editorial in its entirety:

The Stop Rush Campaign

709 words
12 September 2003
The Wall Street Journal
A10
English
(Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Republicans love to complain that they don't get a fair shake from the elites running the nation's airwaves and newspapers. Which has us wondering why they're helping their political opponents muzzle the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Ever since the Federal Communications Commission's June decision to allow broadcast TV owners to own a few more stations, liberals have been channeling George Orwell -- claiming Big Brother broadcasters are a "threat to democracy" that will stifle "diversity of view." With the aid of many Republicans, they've already blocked the new rules in the House and may pass a resolution on Monday to do the same in the Senate.

We've addressed the substance of this issue several times, but the truth is that this crusade has little to do with the merits. Anyone who channel surfs or roams the Internet knows America isn't suffering from any lack of news sources. What's really driving the politicians is the desire for revenge against their media enemies.

On the left, this means returning to the days before deregulation opened the airwaves to the populist political right. Liberals know what has happened since the FCC abandoned the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. That rule required radio and TV stations to provide "balanced" news coverage. In practice, it discouraged stations from touching controversial subjects, so that in 1980 there were a mere 75 talk radio stations.

Today, thanks to the end of that doctrine, there are 1,300 talk radio stations. But to the horror of the political left, the hosts who have prospered on radio are the likes of Don Imus, Laura Schlessinger and Sean Hannity. The most popular of them all is Rush Limbaugh, no doubt because of his humor and optimism, with 20 million listeners a week.

Meanwhile, because cable and satellite aren't over-regulated the way broadcasters are, we've seen successes like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. The cable channel has blown past CNN in the ratings in just seven years, and its different take on the news drives liberals up the wall. So obsessed are they with Fox that Al Gore and friends are trying to finance their own liberal cable network.

The only reason these new media voices have succeeded is because people want to hear them. There's no public clamor for the top-down regulation Congress wants, beyond the crowd that donates during National Public Radio pledge week. Americans like their media choices and would rather not go back to the days when Walter Cronkite was their main, scintillating news source.

Liberals, on the other hand, are almost transparent in their aim to do precisely that. During July's House floor debate, Michigan Democrat John Dingell explained that once they roll back the FCC ownership expansion liberals can then move to reverse another recent FCC decision to allow companies to own TV stations and newspapers in the same market. They may then go to town on New York Representative Maurice Hinchey's proposal to revive the Fairness Doctrine and complicate life for both Fox and Rush.

What's amazing is how oblivious Republicans are to this stop-Rush game. So eager are Senators Trent Lott and Kay Bailey Hutchison to paste a defeat on their local media enemies that they're willing to punish all media companies. For their part, House Republicans have fallen for the lobbying of local TV and newspapers that want Congressional protection from takeover bids; Members are too frightened by what kind of coverage they'll get next election to just say no.

At least the White House seems to understand the stakes, and President Bush has suggested he'll veto any bill that rolls back the FCC rules. But House Republicans are said to be about 40 votes short of the 146 or so needed to sustain a veto. If Republicans can't rally behind their President on something so clearly in their own interest, they deserve to suffer the bias of Dan Rather and Katie Couric.

And, hopeless as this point might be, they might also consider that standing up for free-market principles and deregulation is one reason they came to Washington in the first place.

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2953 days
Last activity: 2950 days
#14 Posted on



Then please do.



Weekly Visitor - PSSSSHAW!

Jersey Is Dead - New Old Stuff!!!
Pages: 1Thread ahead: If They're Anarchists, how can they be a "team"
Next thread: The only way to read a Bush speech
Previous thread: 9/11: Two years later
(1797 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Kwame Kilpatrick? They got a Irish Mayor in Detroit? Anyhow, I think if the business people want to group together, fine, but dont spend city cash on it.
The W - Current Events & Politics - For the ACLUitesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.129 seconds.