-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
If Conservatives Can Ban Indecency, Libs Can Have a Fairness Doctrine
- Thread starter smedge2006
- Start date
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
It is amazing to me that conservatives are now railing against "fairness."
No conservatives are railing against "fairness". They are railing against a doctrine that has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept that is included in the title of the doctrine.
Any so-called "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with the true concept of fairness, just as the Democrat Party in the US has nothing to do with actual democracy.
No conservatives are railing against "fairness". They are railing against a doctrine that has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept that is included in the title of the doctrine.
Any so-called "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with the true concept of fairness, just as the Democrat Party in the US has nothing to do with actual democracy.
I should find it amazing that liberals are against the first amendment, but I don't. "Fairness" can't be defined in any effective way..it would take programmers or government officials literally monitoring with a stopwatch 24/7 to see how many "pro-republican" comments and "pro-democratic" comments are utterred by hosts and callers alike (let alone all other beliefs). By the way, as far as I know, not every conservative talk show host was behind the crackdown after the boobie incident..I don't believe Rush was, for example
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
"Fairness" can't be defined in any effective way..
The very idea that "fairness" somehow equates to giving all opinions an equal amount of airtime is patently ridiculous. As you alluded to, there are more points of view than just the views of the Republican and Democrat Parties. If any sort of legal "fairness doctrine" were to be implemented, then it would have to include a "fair" (meaning equal) amount of time for all the fringe parties, including the new fringe parties that will be created to take advantage of the availability of free air-time.
We could see the creation of the "Good Health for America Through Clean Colons Party", demanding equal time for their message of using various products to thoroughly cleanse everyones' colon.
We could see the creation of the "Lesbians with Breast Implants Party", which would champion Howard Stern as their candidate for President. That could put him back on terrestrial radio with no threat of censorship.
Interestingly, back in the 1960's in Germany, there was a law forbidding any sort of censorship or suppression of any political party's literature. So, an enterprising pornographer started the "Sex Party" that sold graphically explicit "campaign literature" that was totally immune to any sort of censorship.
There's also the ludicrous notion that all ideas are of equal worth, and that fairness requires that all ideas be treated as being equally valid. Given that some individuals hold the opinion that there is no such thing as a "fact", and that every idea is merely an opinion, a new "fairness doctrine" law could require the broadcasting of lies in order to provide a "fair" counterpoint to the truth.
The very idea that "fairness" somehow equates to giving all opinions an equal amount of airtime is patently ridiculous. As you alluded to, there are more points of view than just the views of the Republican and Democrat Parties. If any sort of legal "fairness doctrine" were to be implemented, then it would have to include a "fair" (meaning equal) amount of time for all the fringe parties, including the new fringe parties that will be created to take advantage of the availability of free air-time.
We could see the creation of the "Good Health for America Through Clean Colons Party", demanding equal time for their message of using various products to thoroughly cleanse everyones' colon.
We could see the creation of the "Lesbians with Breast Implants Party", which would champion Howard Stern as their candidate for President. That could put him back on terrestrial radio with no threat of censorship.
Interestingly, back in the 1960's in Germany, there was a law forbidding any sort of censorship or suppression of any political party's literature. So, an enterprising pornographer started the "Sex Party" that sold graphically explicit "campaign literature" that was totally immune to any sort of censorship.
There's also the ludicrous notion that all ideas are of equal worth, and that fairness requires that all ideas be treated as being equally valid. Given that some individuals hold the opinion that there is no such thing as a "fact", and that every idea is merely an opinion, a new "fairness doctrine" law could require the broadcasting of lies in order to provide a "fair" counterpoint to the truth.
How patently silly. A fairness doctrine can be creafted in such a way to provide more then just one view on substantive issues.
What I find so fascinating is how those who scream they are "fair and balanced" the loudest are neither and would prefer there be no opportunity for anything resembling "balance."
What I find so fascinating is how those who scream they are "fair and balanced" the loudest are neither and would prefer there be no opportunity for anything resembling "balance."
E
evnlee
Guest
justareporter said:
I find reporters that claim 'objectivity' as absurd, especially since they seem to be the ones complaining about who is truly 'fair and balanced' :
And, as we all know, there is no media bias. That's why Rush is so successful :
Having been a reporter for better then 30 years I can tell you most are unbiased.
As for Rush...well...there is no accounting for taste.
As for Rush...well...there is no accounting for taste.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
A fairness doctrine can be creafted in such a way to provide more then just one view on substantive issues.
Really? How many views must be presented on "substantive issues"? Three? Four? Twenty-seven?
Who decides if an issue is "substantive"? You? Me? A government appointed tribunal? Congress?
Whatever happened to allowing the audience to decide, and to express their decision by what they choose to tune in to? Whatever happened to "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."?
What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"?
Don't you understand the meaning of "shall make no law"? Isn't that clear enough?
Really? How many views must be presented on "substantive issues"? Three? Four? Twenty-seven?
Who decides if an issue is "substantive"? You? Me? A government appointed tribunal? Congress?
Whatever happened to allowing the audience to decide, and to express their decision by what they choose to tune in to? Whatever happened to "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."?
What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"?
Don't you understand the meaning of "shall make no law"? Isn't that clear enough?
You might also remember that stations are licensed by the government to broadcast in the "public interest, convenience and necessity."
"Public interest" would suggest a broad range of opinions, not just one view.
In lieu of quoting the contitution, you might look at the FCC rules and regs..
"Public interest" would suggest a broad range of opinions, not just one view.
In lieu of quoting the contitution, you might look at the FCC rules and regs..
If you listen to AM radio at all on Saturdays or Sundays, it is clear that this position has more than equal time on the airwaves. I would also support a "Flush Doctrine" to deal with these charlatans.
E
evnlee
Guest
justareporter said:
As a good reporter, and trusted member of the media, I challenge you to 'look at both sides' and then determine your standpoint.
The FCC does not exist to promote free speech, instead it's sole purpose is to deny free speech.
read Ayn Rand's dissertation on the FCC
here :http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/aynrand.html
and get back to me
Okay...so I read it:
Ms. Rand says in part, "Since there is no such thing as the "public interest" (other than the sum of the individual interests of individual citizens), since that collectivist catch-phrase has never been and can never be defined, it amounted to a blank check on totalitarian power over the broadcasting industry"
I remember reading some of her material in college. I thought she was empty-headed then. My opinion of her stands.
Ms. Rand says in part, "Since there is no such thing as the "public interest" (other than the sum of the individual interests of individual citizens), since that collectivist catch-phrase has never been and can never be defined, it amounted to a blank check on totalitarian power over the broadcasting industry"
I remember reading some of her material in college. I thought she was empty-headed then. My opinion of her stands.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
In lieu of quoting the contitution, you might look at the FCC rules and regs..
I've looked at those rules and regs. Then I looked back at the Constitution. And the strange thing was, I couldn't find anything in the Constitution that permitted the Federal Government to write those rules and regulations, except for the technical specifications about frequencies and bandwidth which affect interstate commerce, since radio waves cross state lines.
I also couldn't find anything in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to appoint regulatory agencies to write rules and regulations that had the same force and authority as law, but without actually being laws.
So, it still comes down to what part of "Congress shall make no law" can you not understand?
I've looked at those rules and regs. Then I looked back at the Constitution. And the strange thing was, I couldn't find anything in the Constitution that permitted the Federal Government to write those rules and regulations, except for the technical specifications about frequencies and bandwidth which affect interstate commerce, since radio waves cross state lines.
I also couldn't find anything in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to appoint regulatory agencies to write rules and regulations that had the same force and authority as law, but without actually being laws.
So, it still comes down to what part of "Congress shall make no law" can you not understand?
At the risk of turning this into a classroom:
The Communications Act of 1934 was a United States federal law enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.
Does that help?
BTW...I didn't see anyting in the Constitution about speed limits, drinking on Sunday or attending Synagogue. Does that mean I can drive as fast as I like on the way to the liquor store having attended my Saturday services?
The Communications Act of 1934 was a United States federal law enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.
Does that help?
BTW...I didn't see anyting in the Constitution about speed limits, drinking on Sunday or attending Synagogue. Does that mean I can drive as fast as I like on the way to the liquor store having attended my Saturday services?
E
evnlee
Guest
justareporter said:
Speed limits fall under the 'general welfare', since speed kills ( Ask Earnhardt ).
In Georgia, the state is now debating whether or not you can buy a 6 pack for the football game from the store on Sunday. You can buy it in a bar. You can get one in a restaurant. But not Kroger's.
That's a clear violation of my right to the 'pursuit of happiness'.
As for Rand being empty-headed, thats your opinion. I think she knows more about 'totalitarianism' then any current day reportert could ever hope to know. It is a product of escaping said regimes.
Ironically, it was a republican, Herbert Hoover, that was responsible for the creation of the FCC ???
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
BTW...I didn't see anyting in the Constitution about speed limits, drinking on Sunday or attending Synagogue.
Read Amendment X, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Speed limits are state laws. Congress doesn't set speed limits (legally, at least), the individual states do. The individual states pass laws regulating the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages, or else the states pass enabling legislation to transfer that power down to county or municipal government levels.
These misunderstandings are prime examples of why liberal talk radio is so difficult to sell. It's why so few people with a liberal political outlook want to spend time listening to liberal news/talk radio. Listening to any sort of news/talk radio, regardless of the political bias of the host, requires a certain level of interest in politics and government. To find such talk entertaining, one needs a certain level of understanding of the issues, which can be complex. It is very difficult to find someone with a liberal political outlook who also understands how the US government works, because once one learns how government works, one sees that liberalism won't work.
Compare news/talk to sports/talk. How many people would choose to listen to sports talk radio programming who know little or nothing about sports? How many people would choose to listen to sports talk radio programing who don't care about sports, or who have no interest in sports? Politics aren't that much different from sports.
The relative handful of people who are knowledgeable about politics yet who remain liberal in their outlook aren't numerous enough to form a viable mass audience for liberal news/talk radio programming. True, there might be a few markets in the country where such individuals tend to gather in larger numbers. In those isolated markets, liberal news/talk radio has a better chance of success. But the existence of such isolated, non-typical markets is not proof of a larger, nationwide opportunity for such programming.
Read Amendment X, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Speed limits are state laws. Congress doesn't set speed limits (legally, at least), the individual states do. The individual states pass laws regulating the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages, or else the states pass enabling legislation to transfer that power down to county or municipal government levels.
These misunderstandings are prime examples of why liberal talk radio is so difficult to sell. It's why so few people with a liberal political outlook want to spend time listening to liberal news/talk radio. Listening to any sort of news/talk radio, regardless of the political bias of the host, requires a certain level of interest in politics and government. To find such talk entertaining, one needs a certain level of understanding of the issues, which can be complex. It is very difficult to find someone with a liberal political outlook who also understands how the US government works, because once one learns how government works, one sees that liberalism won't work.
Compare news/talk to sports/talk. How many people would choose to listen to sports talk radio programming who know little or nothing about sports? How many people would choose to listen to sports talk radio programing who don't care about sports, or who have no interest in sports? Politics aren't that much different from sports.
The relative handful of people who are knowledgeable about politics yet who remain liberal in their outlook aren't numerous enough to form a viable mass audience for liberal news/talk radio programming. True, there might be a few markets in the country where such individuals tend to gather in larger numbers. In those isolated markets, liberal news/talk radio has a better chance of success. But the existence of such isolated, non-typical markets is not proof of a larger, nationwide opportunity for such programming.
"one needs a certain level of understanding of the issues, which can be complex. It is very difficult to find someone with a liberal political outlook who also understands how the US government works, because once one learns how government works, one sees that liberalism won't work. "
Liberalism works just fine thank you very much.
The reverse argument could be that most of us liberals are tired of listening to the same old one-note-samba conservatives and have forsaken radio talk shows all-together.
As for sports talk...you couldn't bore me more if you tried.
You want to prove the earth is flat..have a field day. I'm bored.
Liberalism works just fine thank you very much.
The reverse argument could be that most of us liberals are tired of listening to the same old one-note-samba conservatives and have forsaken radio talk shows all-together.
As for sports talk...you couldn't bore me more if you tried.
You want to prove the earth is flat..have a field day. I'm bored.
E
evnlee
Guest
justareporter said:
except on RADIO
Actualy it works just fine. Just like newsradio it has a select market. You sell the selective audience. You sell exclusivity.
.
.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Liberalism works just fine thank you very much.
I'll agree to that with one exception. It hasn't been demonstrated to be a very good way to govern a nation, yet. Someday, it might work just fine at governing a nation, it just hasn't quite worked yet. But, if we keep trying it, and continue to throw enough money at liberal programs, eventually things will change and they might start to work. We just haven't followed the liberal approaches long enough. Four decades is too short a period of time to expect LBJ's Great Society programs to start having a positive impact on society.
Just like newsradio it has a select market. You sell the selective audience. You sell exclusivity.
He thing is (and speaking as a former marketing consultant who was very successful at advising businesses how to best and most cost effectively reach their target markets), to reach the select market of people who want to listen to liberal talk radio, it's much more cost-effective to simply drive to both of their homes and invite them in person to come to your store.
I'll agree to that with one exception. It hasn't been demonstrated to be a very good way to govern a nation, yet. Someday, it might work just fine at governing a nation, it just hasn't quite worked yet. But, if we keep trying it, and continue to throw enough money at liberal programs, eventually things will change and they might start to work. We just haven't followed the liberal approaches long enough. Four decades is too short a period of time to expect LBJ's Great Society programs to start having a positive impact on society.
Just like newsradio it has a select market. You sell the selective audience. You sell exclusivity.
He thing is (and speaking as a former marketing consultant who was very successful at advising businesses how to best and most cost effectively reach their target markets), to reach the select market of people who want to listen to liberal talk radio, it's much more cost-effective to simply drive to both of their homes and invite them in person to come to your store.
- Status