Fairness Doctrine Talk Returns

[TheBigA]

Now some of you are opposed to net neutrality?!?

First of all, I don't get that from anything anyone here has said.

Second of all, one of the problems is defining net neutrality. That's the problem with the FCC proposal, and why some don't like it.

But my experience with the phone company is they don't want to censor or limit anything. They just want to be able to charge you more for speed and unlimited access. It's all about money.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Now some of you are opposed to net neutrality?!?

First of all, I don't get that from anything anyone here has said.

Second of all, one of the problems is defining net neutrality. That's the problem with the FCC proposal, and why some don't like it.

But my experience with the phone company is they don't want to censor or limit anything. They just want to be able to charge you more for speed and unlimited access. It's all about money.

Lightning strikes twice. Maybe the Mayans were right about the world ending soon.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Second of all, one of the problems is defining net neutrality. That's the problem with the FCC proposal, and why some don't like it.

That's part of it. The other part is that the proposal really does nothing more than give the FCC a foothold into the troublesome arena of regulating Internet content.

 

[TheBigA]

the troublesome arena of regulating Internet content.

I don't see how. It gives them a foothold into regulating traffic. Which is different from content.

 

[flashback]

the fcc should stay away from the internet.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

the fcc should stay away from the internet.

Eventually, some "power" will make internet decisions, call the shots if you please.

It can be our government, which there is a rumor that we elect.

Or, it can be some company that gobbles up a controlling interest... someone like Bill Gates... or someone like Georg Soros... or someone like BP Oil... or someone like Rupert Murdock.... none of who we get to elect.

Sometimes in real life when you see the forest fire coming, you go outside your fragile little cabin and set some "back fires" and clear out some space of all fuel so when the BIG FIRE comes, it does not consume your little castle out in the woods. That is one of the things we sometimes use government for.

 

[Talk_Dude]

the troublesome arena of regulating Internet content.

I don't see how. It gives them a foothold into regulating traffic. Which is different from content.

Have you never heard of the parable about letting the camel get just his nose into a tent?

 

[Talk_Dude]

the fcc should stay away from the internet.

Eventually, some "power" will make internet decisions, call the shots if you please.

It can be our government, which there is a rumor that we elect.

You are correct. It is a rumor that we elect the government. We only elect Congress. The real government, the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who actually conduct the day-to-day business remain in office and in power regardless of how the fickle voice of the public moves those in nominal positions of power in and out of office.

 

[Tom Wells]

Now some of you are opposed to net neutrality?!?

First of all, I don't get that from anything anyone here has said.

Second of all, one of the problems is defining net neutrality. That's the problem with the FCC proposal, and why some don't like it.

But my experience with the phone company is they don't want to censor or limit anything. They just want to be able to charge you more for speed and unlimited access. It's all about money.

Lightning strikes twice. Maybe the Mayans were right about the world ending soon.

World Ending? Not likely. Their calendar is a wheel.....
Naw, it's just going to incorporate more dimensions (than 3 plus time) and talk radio will be moot.
Everyone will know it all, and who's (been) telling the truth.
The world won't end but many aspects about these 3 dimensions will likely become irrelevant.
My best guess.

 

[Ultimajock]

free speech on the radio.

...what a concept. Ought to try it someday, there's damned little of it nowadays...

Just as "freedom of the press" only applies to people who can afford ink, paper, and a printing press, freedom of speech on the radio only applies to people who can afford transmitters, antennas, studios, and all the other related gear.

...your claim omits a very important fact -- the frequencies used, the very airwaves being transmitted upon, are themselves owned by the citizens of the United States of America. That ownership is not sold to the licensee. Your concept of "free speech on the airwaves" is much like an individual who hires a groundskeeper to maintain their lawn, and the groundskeeper prevents the landowner from walking across that lawn whenever the landowner damn well pleases. That is a foolish attitude to take...

 

[Kelly Watts]

The FCC would screw up a one car funeral. Just look at the AM and FM spectrums! On AM, granting power increases so the band sounds like a mismash, on FM 80/90 that put channel assignments in towns without a traffic light.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Lightning strikes twice. Maybe the Mayans were right about the world ending soon.

World Ending? Not likely. Their calendar is a wheel.....
Naw, it's just going to incorporate more dimensions (than 3 plus time) and talk radio will be moot.
Everyone will know it all, and who's (been) telling the truth.
The world won't end but many aspects about these 3 dimensions will likely become irrelevant.
My best guess.


[/quote]

I was alluding to TheBigA and I agreeing twice in a day or two. That is a sign of the end of the world.

your claim omits a very important fact -- the frequencies used, the very airwaves being transmitted upon, are themselves owned by the citizens of the United States of America. That ownership is not sold to the licensee. Your concept of "free speech on the airwaves" is much like an individual who hires a groundskeeper to maintain their lawn, and the groundskeeper prevents the landowner from walking across that lawn whenever the landowner damn well pleases. That is a foolish attitude to take...

Right. At one time all of the land in the Louisiana Purchase belonged to "the citizens of the United States of America". The government gave some to the railroad and the rest to homesteaders. The shores of the oceans belong to "the citizens of the United States of America", but private enterprise owns the land along the best harbors and runs the docks.

A more accurate perspective is that the frequencies and airwaves belong to God, and no person, nation, or company can possibly own them. They are simply there. At most, people can agree on how to use them without bumping into each other.

Tell you what. You go out tomorrow and broadcast a radio program without a transmitter and all the other equipment needed to send out a broadcast, and then report back how successful you were. Tell us all what frequency you'll be transmitting on without any equipment, so that we can all tune in.

 

[TheBigA]

your claim omits a very important fact -- the frequencies used, the very airwaves being transmitted upon, are themselves owned by the citizens of the United States of America. That ownership is not sold to the licensee.

You really don't understand the fundamental change the FCC made in 1982. From that point on, licenses, for all intents and purposes, became property. In that very same building, they've been auctioning off "the people's spectrum" to the highest bidder for years. If you don't believe me, file a license challenge to a station and tell me what happens.

 

[MattParker]

your claim omits a very important fact -- the frequencies used, the very airwaves being transmitted upon, are themselves owned by the citizens of the United States of America. That ownership is not sold to the licensee.

You really don't understand the fundamental change the FCC made in 1982. From that point on, licenses, for all intents and purposes, became property. In that very same building, they've been auctioning off "the people's spectrum" to the highest bidder for years. If you don't believe me, file a license challenge to a station and tell me what happens.

The government has been doing the same thing with oil (black gold, Texas tea) reserves, mineral rights and logging rights for years. I know some of you think precedent makes something all right. No, it just makes it easier to get away with. I had a social studies teacher in high school who would argue the Warren G. Harding was the greatest US president. He not only sold off natural resources, he took a cut for himself.

That said, maybe auctioning off radio and TV allocations FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME might not be so bad an approach. The FCC manages to mess up anything it touches. It would be made clear that station operators are renters not owners. Commercial broadcasters who don't show black ink over the period their lease can't bid in the next auction. Otherwise the incumbent bids against all comers. I think five years would be a reasonable length of time for the leases to run. If an incumbent is out bid, he can sell his facilities to the new renter (or auction them off on E-Bay). Minimum bids would be established; if nobody meets it, the station goes silent. Good way to clear out all the dead wood on the AM band. Public radio stations would get lower minimum bid requirements in the non-commercial band (but give up all tax revenue). Preachers would be taken out of the non-commercial band and required to bid as commercial stations (they can afford it).

 

[KeithE4]

your claim omits a very important fact -- the frequencies used, the very airwaves being transmitted upon, are themselves owned by the citizens of the United States of America. That ownership is not sold to the licensee.

You really don't understand the fundamental change the FCC made in 1982. From that point on, licenses, for all intents and purposes, became property. In that very same building, they've been auctioning off "the people's spectrum" to the highest bidder for years. If you don't believe me, file a license challenge to a station and tell me what happens.

Blame Congress, not the FCC. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 mandated the auctions, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 expanded the FCC's authority to auction spectrum. The FCC is doing what it was told to do by Congress.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm not "blaming" anybody. I'm just living in the real world.

 

[Tom Wells]

I was alluding to TheBigA and I agreeing twice in a day or two. That is a sign of the end of the world.

Yes, I'm agreeing, and there may be a whole lot more agreeing than is realized, but semantics and
other obsfuscations of the flesh blinds us to this.

This layer that gives us such easy access to the "peace of mind ignorance permits" is probably what will end.

And there will be alot more agreement, but from seemingly diverse and unlikely places.

Your assessment of "the world ending" being signaled by unexpected agreement...
Think about it from a few different perspectives...

What happens when everyone agrees?
Do we "need" to have disagreements to define ourselves?

If we all reach agreement, something certainly is ending. But is "that" the world.

Now, why do you suppose you and Big A find agreement on this matter?

 

[KevinFodor]

Ah, the wing-nut talk show hosts are dragging this out again to rouse the rabble. The Tucson shooting has them scared that this may be the end of their lucrative hate-mongering.

Some facts:

• The fairness doctrine was about station editorials, not talk shows. If stations did an editorial, they had to allow someone with an opposing viewpoint airtime to reply. TV stations finally figured out the audience didn't care much for either the editorials or the replies and stopped doing them.
• Opinionated talk show hosts, bloviating on politics, were around and did just fine when the fairness doctrine was in effect. Joe Pyne. Wally George. Bob Grant. Yes, even Rush Limbaugh. When Rush says different, he lies. The FCC considered talk shows entertainment and didn't bother with them. If they had, all a station would have to do is let on callers who disagree with the host. The callers wouldn't stand a chance with a host who can pot them down any time but this arguably would make much better radio than callers who saying nothing but "mega-dittos."

One has to ask, why are Rush and his copy cats so afraid of the fairness doctrine?

Matt: Careful here, dude. While you're one of the first people who have actually gotten the question "what was the Fairness Doctrine" right for the most part, you also hit it right about "The FCC considered talk shows entertainment".

So why are certain FCC commissioners and those on the left bloviating about why we need a Fairness Doctrine for these talk shows? After all, they're just "entertainment", correct? That's how the FCC figured it way back when, right?

Another reason for the original Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with programming. It had to do with media concentration...back then. Medium sized cities had only 6 or 8 stations coming into the market (the one I lived in had that many). The explosion of additional radio stations today, plus TV, plus existing newspapers, plus the internet renders the "media concentration" argument moot because with all this media, one can find any type of though one would want...or not want for that matter.

Why are the hosts "afraid" of a new Doctrine? Let's see how the language of the proposal is written, should it ever get that far...Should it be written that a right wing talk show must be followed by a similarly times left wing talk show, regardless of whether or not the left wing show can garner ratings, then you'd have a problem. This is not NPR we're talking about here, where ratings are basically irrelevant...

And, don't confuse "Fairness Doctrine" with "Equal Time Laws" as some people on both sides do. The Equal Time laws are still in effect, but deal with election coverage.

Oh yeah...the shooter didn't listen to "political radio". But loved the Communist Manifesto, supposedly. You might want to rethink your first comment...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Oh yeah...the shooter didn't listen to "political radio". But loved the Communist Manifesto, supposedly. You might want to rethink your first comment...

60 Minutes on CBS led off with an interesting piece last night. It was about the "profilers" who work for the Secret Service who study, and when possible, interview (over and over?) people who are assassins and attempted assassins. So far it looks like the Tucson shooter fits the standard profile like a glove. If you missed it, it is worth taking the time to find it on the Internet and watch it.

The event is sad and tragic. But buried in the minutia of details there is from time to time something that can make you laugh as you shake your head in disgust. The shooter had a run in with his father that morning and couldn't retrieve his car to make the trip to the site where "Congress on the Corner" was going to take place, so he took a taxi. Now get this. Remember when police were looking for a "person of interest" spotted on the security videos? It turned out to be the cab driver who delivered the shooter to the scene. It turns out that cost of the cab ride was $15, the shooter had a twenty and the cab driver had no change. So they went in to get change.

So this is the day your life becomes front page news. This is the day you are likely to die in a shoot-out with the police. And if you don't die you are going to end up in jail forever. But you are so obsessed with the $5 that you can't say: "Aw hell, keep the change. I won't be needing it." You drag the cabbie into the store so you can get your five dollars back.

In concede that the defenders of talk radio as we know it today are right in this case. We are likely to find that the shooter was not a listener to any radio talk show. But the debate will rage on for months and years: Does talk radio help keep, build or enable a mindset in America that keeps us from spotting the next candidate for the
Secret Service profilers? The debate will go on and on until some of us lose our own mental health and become obsessed with our own "five dollars worth of change."

 

[DonTheTrucker]

We are likely to find that the shooter was not a listener to any radio talk show.

That's already been well documented. Besides his occasional death threats to local hosts, he had absolutely no connection to any talk radio. Just like 99.999% of 22 year old men.

As I've said before: Sometimes a nut is just a nut.