Now that Democrats are back in control of Congress, for however brief a time, they’re ready to use government intrusion to ride the coattails of conservative talk radio.
Whenever things aren’t going well for liberals, they fall back on the only thing at their disposal: Big Government. When outgunned and outmanned, they create more government regulations to inhibit the success and progress of their conservative betters. One way they intend to do this is by resurrecting the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission regulation enforced from 1949 to 1987 that required broadcast licensees to present both sides of a controversial issue. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled the practice constitutional, contending that there was “nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.”
During the era of deregulation under President Ronald Reagan, the practice was dropped in 1987. In the absence of the archaic regulation, conservative talk radio flourished. But liberals are eager to exercise their new power and leech off the success of conservative markets. Led by busybodies with too little important work to do like Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Senator Bernie Sanders, Democrats want to chill conservative speech and what they consider to be attacks against liberals.
In practice, the Fairness Doctrine is impractical. A conservative broadcaster seeking to establish his solo show probably wouldn’t include a liberal in the format to argue for the “other side,†and a conservative host wouldn’t be conservative if he constantly discussed “contrasting points of view.†Under a Fairness Doctrine law, he’d be fined for his one-sided show.
I know conservative shows are biased, but the bias is transparent. That’s why I occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear him cut down liberals, mock their Big Government reliance, fear of competition, and race pandering. On days when I’m sick to death of our not-conservative-enough-for-me president, I turn on Rush, who always makes me feel better.
And that’s exactly what liberals want to dilute. Conservatives win every time in the war of ideas; liberals, bereft of ideas of their own, will try to suppress and regulate the marketplace of ideas at every opportunity. For examples, see college speech codes and hate crime laws.
Liberals dominate major newspapers and most television networks. They rule Hollywood, and in most major cities, you are presumed to be liberal unless otherwise noted, especially if you’re black. They’ve got taxpayer-supported radio and TV already. National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System both lean left. But it’s not enough for them. They are more interested in stifling conservative speech than creating something of value of their own in an open and competitive radio market.
Air America failed because people just don’t want to listen to a bunch of whiny, white, America-hating leftists all day. Go figure!
Related posts:
- The PBS Incident – Personal story
- PBS Gets The Message About Liberal Bias
- Failure of Liberal Talk Radio
- Air America Fails to Re-Pay Money Stolen From Poor Black Kids in New York – To File for Bankruptcy?
Sources:
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 189 comments }
Conservative ideas rarely win out when given the light of day; why do you think so much of the GOP’s legislation from 2000 to 2006 passed at 4 am, with Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert twisting fellow conservatives’ arms to get corrupt legislation to pass? You can pretend that so called genuine conservatives like John Shaddegg and Tom Tancredo weren’t apart of that crowd, but they agreed 99% with Delay and his cronies when it mattered.
But i guess that goes with the premise of your argument: people should be allowed to be biased and ignore relevant FACTS to promote an agenda, and people who want to listen to that BIAS should be able to without being given actual FACTS.
America is so much stronger because of that: we have a right not to hear the truth, but only the truth as we see it.
Ed Schulz of Progressive Talk Radio would actually let conservatives make arguments on the radio and debate them. When a liberal caller pointed out inconsistencies in Rush Limbaugh’s arguments, they were immediately disconnected.
You might want to look at some of the Ethics Reforms Bills out in Congress right now. Those lionheart conservatives like Tom Tancredo are busying attaching poison pill provisions to make sure they don’t pass, so they can continue to bilk taxpayers and fly on corporate jets. But wait, those are facts, and as a free enterprise you have a right to ignore facts and post what you want to.
While you’re at it, keep up the illegal alien bashing and continue to promote Tom Tancredo as a viable Presidential Candidate. I guess you didn’t see what happened to Henry Bonilla to see that a vast majority of the country disagrees with you. You think 2006 was bad, if conservatives keep at it with websites like stopmartinez.com, it will only get worse.
The facts in this case are that a majority of the country clearly disagrees with people like Tom Tancredo, even if the bias on Conservative radio or blogs like yours lead us to believe otherwise. See when you ignore facts like that, your bias only comes back to haunt you and hurt your agenda.
So Tristan, other than slamming a few of the folks on the conservative side who you perceive to be rotten apples, what have you just said that contributes to an intelligent dialogue today?
The Democratic idea of ‘Fair and Balanced’…
‘Siyo Friends, doesn’t Communist China, Russia and Islamic states etc. have a ‘Fairness Doctrine’ as their policy to ensure the FREE flow of PARTY LINE propaganda? Am I missing something?
Better re-read the First Amendment which is secured by the Second. Wado’ (Thank you)
OMG I’m bet Dan Rather’s glad he retired.
correction above “I’m betting Dan Rather’s…”
When the speech Nazis like the content, they tell us “Just change the channel.” When they don’t like the content, they demand to change the content. If we demand to change the content, they call us “Nazis.” The game is called “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
I don’t see the Dem’s argument. Unless, of course, it is about the content of the myriad sources of information and new available through such diverse entities as Dish, Cable, Talk Radio, the Internet, Blogoshphere, Forums, PodCasts, YouTube and Live Leak.
So much more is available since I was a kid and there were just the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) to choose from.
Jack.
I would like everyone to know that I am campaigning to become the Fairness Czar when the Fairness Doctrine is enshrined. My golden rule of fairness is: “Because I said so. Now go away.”
This is ridiculous!
Is anyone being prevented from creating a talkshow with a liberal slant? No.
Is anyone being prevented from presenting a leftist point of view? No.
This is just as idiotic as someone listening to a rock music radio station and complaining that there’s no jazz.
msmith40
Does the name Kenneth Tomlinson ring any bells?
Conservatives win every time in the war of ideas; liberals, bereft of ideas of their own, will try to suppress and regulate the marketplace of ideas at every opportunity.
I guess this last election taught you nothing.
Louder doesn’t necessarily mean correct and hate is always an easier sell than logic/reason/ or compassion.
I love your blog. I linked to you today. Thanks for your contribution to educating people on the “other side of the news”.
Here’s a simple reason why the Fairness Doctrine is correct and just: no conservatives, no liberals own the airwaves. The broadcasters rent them from the American people. Therefore, a balanced view should be enforced (and creationism/ID does not count since theology is no balance to the truth of factual science) or provide disclaimers every 30 seconds (or whatever interval is required to ensure it gets captured in this country’s attention span) that what you are about to hear is unadulterated, one-sided spin most likely paid for by some monolith wishing for domination over your spending dollars or wishing to carcinogize (yes, that is made up) your air and if you want to hear a countervailing viewpoint you should turn elsewhere.
In any event, conservative radio will almost always win out over liberal radio because the latter is less dogmatic, has listeners more able to think for themselves, and an audience more interested in the live exchange of ideas instead of clapping along to (in the words of my grandmother) “some hay-hen throwing out the lifeline.”
The only fareness I see is that liberuls our slowly beeing forced out of all meedia. If jesus was here thats what he would do. Liberul philosofy is bad for your mental helth, doesn’t make any sense, and is for dumies not intelectuols. When they can somehow raese the levul of discusion to something better than a slug, then we can have better arguments. Until then, they should all be rounded up and put on a bote to china!
It is conservatives who are bereft of ideas. That is why they support people who daily spew hate, racism, violence, bigotry, and incitment to murdering Democrats on the airwaves, i.e., the likes of Michael Savage, Melanie Morgan, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc…
Unfortunately, this kind of Nazi discourse appeals to the 30% of primates who support Bush. And media companies like nothing better than making a buck, even if it comes as a result of hate speech.
“Conservatives win every time in the war of ideas”
Which is why they did so well in the last house election.
When confronted with the intellectual deceit and dishonesty that is the hallmark of today’s pseudo-conservative, Real Americans who desire to protect our American ideals and our Constitutional values must think, act and legislate in ways that limit the criminal impact of the fraud and con games the right-wing always practices.
The Fairness Doctrine is necessary because no one individual, business or political party can be allowed to abuse their license to access the public spectrum.
Such license is granted by the People of the United States and its appropriate administrative bodies. No one has a right to that license and no one has a right to use the public spectrum to lie, cheat, steal, defraud or extort the People of the United States.
Abuse of that license must be pre-emptively prevented – which is the only purpose of the Fairness Doctrine.
Wow. Reading the comments I feel like I’m in some alternate universe.
Here’s a suggestion: let’s start the discussion over whether or not The Public owns the airwaves. Is that concept valid or relevant any more? Right now, I’m listening to my favorite radio station over a broadband Internet connection. I could listen to it through my TV–the channel is carried through fiber optic cable. There are other music stations I enjoy that are carried exclusively through the Internet or through cable.
And if we argue that Internet and cable should be considered under “airwaves”, then why doesn’t the Federal Government regulate print media? After all, light waves carry the headlines of newspapers in the stands and impact my visual space, not to mention that newsstands take up physical space on public sidewalks. After all, why exempt print media from the Fairness Doctrine at all, other than tradition?
Why do liberals always remind me so much of Communists?
You are damned right that the American People own the airwaves – and damned wrong that that concept is outdated.
Exploitation does not establish ownership – and the fact that media coporations have the ability to externalize the costs of doing business does not make it right, or honest. In fact, it amounts to theft of resources from the American People.
For Bill: The reason Liberals remind you of Communists is because you have no understanding of either. Linberals are folks who stand up for American ideals and Constitutional values – and conservatives are folks who seek to exploit their fellow countrymen for a quick buck.
I like to listen to Michael Medved although I’m often annoyed by all the Liberal guests he has. What makes it bearable is that Michael asks them fair, hard questions. I find most Liberal programs such as those on Air America boring. The one Liberal program I did like was Jerry Brown’s. His guests did not spend all their time whining about Conservatives but were selected because they were involved in causes they were passionate about. Some guests were rather far out but they were interesting to listen to. Brown’s radio talk show went the way of most Liberal talk shows. It was canceled. I was sorry to see it go.
Since the airwaves are for “rent” why don’t the libs PAY for them? Same reason the eco-psychos don’t pay for land – that would take money from their own pockets (or at least their mom’s pockets).
I’m still waiting to hear the Dem’s ideas and arguments from last election. Remember, a laundry list is NOT a plan. Seems like the Ned Laments lost while the MeToo conservative Dems (Tester, Webb) won. Ifso fatso – there really was no debate.
The libs cannot compete in the marketplace. They are ill-equipped to do so. That’s why they run to Poppa. Courts, education, employment etc.
fiskus, your friggin’ idea of American values just happens to line right up with the USSR, right? What a coincidence. Do all mean ol’ capitalistic bidnessmen “exploit” every innocent customer? If so, I love that Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Edison, farmers, oilmen, truckers, electric company execs, booksellers, etc etc exploit me. You know, you’re allowed to mature in your ideas as you mature in age. I mean, just because you felt this way when you were 16 doesn’t mean you owe it any loyalty.
Michael, I’ll counter your juvenile rhetoric with this: if the rules state that you must provide balance, the renter knows that before the contractor is signed. Therefore, if one does not like the rule, should it be re-enacted, one has the choice to use other means to disperse one’s viewpoint. And, as pointed out above, there are plenty of ways in which one can broadcast as a freeloader in our system, i.e., like polluters who don’t pay the true cost.
And, if you think Webb and Tester are conservatives, you will have to redefine that term so it no longer suits your vision of what that term means.
Vulgar remark deleted. I realize you liberals are here because this link was posted at the Dauo Report, but read my comment policy and follow it if you want to comment at LBC. – Admin
From the 1930 Hays Code for the Motion Picture Industry:
1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
There you go Libs, a great platform from which to launch your Fairness Doctrine of Radio Censorship for all content deemed by the overseers to be hate speech and not in the public interest.
I suggest your board consist of Al Franken, Michael Moore, Ed Asner, Laurie David and Dan Rather. Perhaps John Kerry could be persuaded to wear his magic hat and preside over the proceedings.
Oh, yeah, Jimmy Carter should have a place on the board as well. And maybe you could rope in Chuck Hagel for bipartisan balance.
As we know, the November 2006 elections prove that all America wants this.
michael, is there actually a reference to all businessmen in fiskus’ response? Umm, no. Take your straw man with you and hold onto HIS ankles!
Now, let’s go over this very slowly…this is a discussion about the Fairness Doctrine and the airwaves. Fiskus points out that a businessman who is allowed to externalize his costs is an exploiter. Why? According to Merriam Webster, the 2nd definition of exploitation is “to make use of meanly or unfairly for one’s own advantage.” When a businessman is allowed to pass his own cost onto someone else, in this case the taxpayer to whom he is supposed to pay rent for the public good being used to generate his profit, he has an unfair position in the marketplace unless all others have the same ‘advantage’ (highlighted because if everyone has it, it can’t be called an advantage). So, the businessman in this case is using unfairly (without paying for it) for his own advantage the publicly-owned transmission means, i.e., this businessman is exploiting.
hold on a second. if dems want to reinstall the fairness doctrine, they should start w/tv. where are the conservative commentators on cnn? msnbc? how about putting a conservative on w/keith olberman? chris matthews? george stephanopoulos? bill moyers? katie couric? tim russert? howard stern? as for radio, is there a conservative commentator on air america?
as for conservative folks spewing hate and all the other stuff, holy cow. how about what’s come from the mouths of elected officials? name one dem that hasn’t spoken ill (to put it lightly) of the president? it’s fine if you disagree w/his view and policies but it’s quite another to call him hitler. how about condi rice? some of her own people have called her a sellout instead of congratuling her on being the first black woman to reach such a position of power. if the dems are all for the advancement of blacks, please name the person who held her position during the clinton administration. also, didn’t sen. boxer from CA just last week attempt (key word there b/c condi didn’t take the bait) to humiliate condi rice by saying she pays no price b/c she’s not going to lose any kids/grandkids in iraq? any outcry from the dems? hardly. the only dem to stand up for the troops has been sen. biden and his own party threw him under the bus and then to the wolves for doing so. and then there’s everyones favorite, the good rev. al sharpton who is a big-time race baiter calling a non-black (my favorite sharptonism) a white interloper. sorry to take up so much space folks but this one got to me. btw, long live el rushbo, hannity, coulter, malkin, and, of course, LB. oh, and the libs too…just to be fair.
My conception of American values has nothing to do with the USSR. I happen to be a believer in individual initiative and capitalism.
Most international corporatists, however, are NOT capitalists, they are plutocrats. Honest “bidnessmen” do not “exploit†every innocent customer; but most of the large international corporations do.
There is a vast difference between the fellow who owns a shop down the street and ExxonMobil, or Merck, or Raytheon, or DuPont. And that difference consists mainly of an entitlement mindset, a demand for “gummint welfare” that ought to make every single Republican blush with shame.
Bill Gates appears to be heading in an American direction, although you must admit he engaged in anticompetitive activities whenever he had the chance. Henry Ford was a Hitler admirer, much like the current President’s grandfather. Edison stole a great deal of his work from Tesla. Farmers, truckers and booksellers have little in common with agribusiness, Big Oil and large international media conglomerates.
And electric company execs have exploited the privileges of a state-granted monopoly so long that they believe they are entitled to steal from their customers.
I have matured in my ideas – I used to think that it was okay to steal from the government, and then I learned that I am the government, just as you need to know that, too.
The problem is that you do not understand the Constitution (and the constitution) of this Great Republic. And it’s not your fault. The rich elite that buy and boss fools like GWB (think Dick-less Cheney) don’t want you to understand that YOU are the government. They want you to feel alientated from the government, powerless to affect it and incapable of changing it.
However, it remains fact that Congress is King, not the President – and your vote as a citizen is the only one that counts; corporations do not vote. ()and sometimes they don’t even pay taxes (think GE).
Joseph Goebbels, call your office immediately. Dennis Kucinich and the Democratic Congress are trying to steal your ideas!
The November 2006 elections DID show that conservative values and ideas always win. The so called conservatives in Congress had not done anything of a conservative nature since passing tax cuts in 2001. Conservatives got frustrated and just didn’t bother to vote or were “snowed” by the conservative democratic candidates that were put up against these weak conservatives.
What Nancy Pelosi is doing along with the liberal wing of the democrats is overplaying their hand. They think there is some mandate for these liberal, leftist ideas. WRONG! Enjoy the short 2 years of majority power.
Conservatives who reject the Constitution (and the Rule of Law (and not of men)) remind me of the ancient Hebrews who rejected God’s Judges (an early example of a government of Laws and not of men) because they desired a King, Saul, whom they could follow blindly, without thought or effort.
David and Solomon notwithstanding, crowning Saul was the beginning of the end of the ancient state of Israel – and appointing Guantanamo George to the position of Urinary Executive will be the beginning of the end of this Great Republic.
#26 Bugaboo opines: “if the rules state that you must provide balance, the renter knows that before the contractor (sic) is signed. Therefore, if one does not like the rule, should it be re-enacted, one has the choice to use other means to disperse one’s viewpoint.”
I don’t image there could ever be any disagreement among reasonable people about “balance” or “fairness” or even what is “reasonable” as in “reasonable people.”
There is an active movement in the new Congress to eliminate the possibly of being skeptical about the causes of “global warming.” In fact, there is even a movement to punish those who are “global warming” detractors. (See: Galileo.) Is this an omen that portends the future of a “fairness doctrine”?
As the ancient Roman proverb has it: “Who watches the watchers?”
And here’s a recent egregious example of corporate exploitation of resources that properly belong to the American People:
“The Interior Department inspector general has issued a report that finds “pervasive problems in the government’s program for ensuring that companies pay the royalties they owe on billions of dollars of oil and gas pumped on federal land and in coastal waters.†The report reveals top Interior Dept. officials knew about the problem for years, but refused to do anything about it.”
Bugaboo, you are soooo confused. You just don’t get it. Right now, there ARE no rules (excepting standards of language,etc) about who can be on the airwaves! The point is, you non-competers want to ADD the rules that you like so you can put out for “free” what you cannot get the public to buy. This is UN-American. If your ideas are so great – I will hear them, believe me.
Here is a fact that will NEVER change. There are no free lunches. You talk about cost being passed on. You are right, the bidnessman ALWAYS passes on the cost to the consumer. This is why LESS government and taxation makes sense to normal Americans. You guys are the thickheaded ones who don’t understand this.
And you may want to redefine what a Dem is if you think Webb and Tester have more in common (ideawise) with you than they do with me.
p.s.- it’s typical that part of your free speech was so vulgar that it got banned;) You must have forgot that you were on a conservative blog.
“Who watches the watchers?â€
After the 2006 elections, there seems to be quite a few folks on this thread today who would answer: Nobody has the right to watch the watchers.
Thus, the re-birth of the Fairness Doctrine.
Hey, Michael, your ignorance is showing: You clearly do NOT understand the fairness doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine does NOT limit or define who can be on the airwaves.
What the Fairness Doctrine does is to ensure that when political speech is broadcast, the American People are given the chance to hear the opposing point of view. All true Americans want to hear opposing points of view because having that info means their decisions are informed, which is clearly in the national security interest of the United States.
The only folks who do NOT want opposing points of view aired are those who have something to hide.
Fiskus, Fiskus, Fiskus, so now it’s INTERNATIONAL corps that I should worry about? Gosh, I hope those foreign folks who normally eat rice 14 times a week don’t feel exploited when their income quadruples when the McDonalds comes to town.
If I don’t like a company, like Google, for whatever reason, I don’t use them anymore. Apparently a lot of people don’t agree with me for whatever reason. That’s business. I go on with my life.
What you call corporate welfare I call a tax rebate. If we didn’t tax the heck out of them in the first place then the Gummint wouldn’t have to bribe them into coming back to the city or state in the second place.
Where should I go to get a job? A hippie commune?
I heart Walmart.
As for the shortcomings of the men you listed, guess what? I don’t care. They are dead. Do we really want to get into what the Kennedy’s and the Ted Turners and George Soros of the world do in their spare time?
And it is typically patronizing of you to tell me that i am too ignorant to understand the Constitution because the GOVERNMENT wants it that way. LOL. I don’t wait around for my govt to direct me. You shouldn’t either. The US dovt doesn’t GUARANTEE happiness, only the PURSUIT of happiness.
I know I’m the government and I would like myself to get the H out of my way:)
fiskus, don’t get in over your head in strange waters. do we have the same bible? Saul was appointed by God as were all the Kings.
And, finally, we are not talking about passing costs on to the consumer – we are talking about corporations who demand the right to leave the taxpayer to pay the bill for their true costs of doing business.
An example would be Johns-Manville (a corporation but not a citizen) who went bankrupt rather than accept personal responsibility for the true cost of asbestos production for the many, many years they profited from damaging the health of citizens
It is, in the end, a complete denial of personal responsibility – and clearly shows the moral poverty of the Republican position. In addition, it results in exorbitant hidden taxes borne by the citizens, but not the corporations.
Yo! #35 fiskus jim; you are really, really confused. You state that “Conservatives who reject the Constitution (and the Rule of Law (and not of men))…..”
Slow down, horse. The Constitution was written by men. The tradition of English Common Law and the Roman concept of the Rule of Law are all constructs of men. Constitution, rule of law, English Common Law—none are divine. The authors and the proponents may have been divinely inspired, but they are all temporal.
Perhaps you are confusing “not of men” with the dictum that “no man is above the law.” (See: Magna Charta, English Petition of Right, Nixon resignation, Clinton impeachment.)
I could “fisk” more of your comments, but I’m not Simon Cowell.
Once again, Michael, you first mischaracterize the argument until you can answer it.
I NEVE$R said the government wants you to misunderstand the Constitution.
The folks who want you to misunderstand the Constitution are George Bush, Dick Cheney – and anyone else who is currently exploiting the system and stealing from taxpayers (who generally are wage earners and NOT corporations – GE paid no tax at all for many years. And STILL tried to manipulate the market for US Treasuries.)
And you failed to address the inherent differences between corporations who are so large they can buy governments and the real businessmen of America, the small business owner. This is not surprising – most Republican success depends on confusing the interests of these two very different sets of business owners: The small business owners are the true stakeholder capitalists, the large multinationals are frequently vehicles for fraud.
Just to throw this out there, re: corporations:
Many more Americans have a stake in corporations today than in the past. When corporations make money, many Americans see their investments increase in value. I know I want the corporations my 401(k) money market funds are invested in to do well, and I am a newly graduated teacher without steady employment yet. Hardly some deep-pocketed person of wealth and privilege…
don’t get me wrong. I’m not for the corrupt evil bad men who run corps. i just think they are few. there are laws to stop environmental damage etc. They should be enforced along with jailtime and fines.
I think we should spread democracy and capitalism. Right now the International community has standards WAY below ours. Of course I want the world’s workers to have safe places to work and opportunities to not starve. But bad-mouthing us is not going to help them.
The Fairness Doctrine DOES determine who gets on the Airwaves. The dreck from AirAmerica would be given a spot back on the airwaves just because. So then I would have to listen to excellent Laura Ingraham, then Michael Moore (pew), Rush, AirAm (yuck) then Medved and then Howard Dean (yaaaaaaaahhhhhh!). Do you really think I’d do that?
The weak product would get propped up by the govt. That is anti-American. We have decided NOT to listen to that junk. The result would be to lower the quality of what we could listen to because the Rush’s would quit due to lack of financial interest. I know this is what the libs want. Ever notice that when a lib idea is implemented (forced) on the marketplace that quality goes down?
Actually, Helio, you failed once again to understand what I am saying – perhaps this is intentional?
Yes, laws are written by men – by men who agree that they shall all be subject to those laws. That makes it a government of those laws and not of the men who wrote them.
I also happen to believe that the Constitution was every bit as God-Directed as as Scripture. The fact that some see it as flawed from the get-go, and subject to compromise, does not change the essential deistic nature of the natural philosophy of the Founders.
Think of it this way: Many, many evengelicals are so afraid of God, and fearful of his judgment because they feel outside of God, that they do not have God within them. Christians with God in them do not need to feel that way because God is within them.
So too with the Constitiution – you eiother believe with all your being that you are the government of this country (along with every other citizen) and express that belief with every single civic act you perform or you feel alienated from that government and wish it would go away.
If the Fairness Doctrine were approved, there would be a mass migration of current conservative talk radio listeners to satellite radio. The rest would stream the broadcasts from online sources.
The reason conservative talk is successful is that people who love truth love hearing truth. Especially when other outlets such as newspapers and major TV networks who should pedal the truth, seem to deal only in error.
Liberal talk radio can never work because, outside of a small minority of what could be their natural audience, people don’t get excited to hear things that don’t ring true even when they as individuals have no love for the truth.
You nailed it, Ross – you con folks love to hear gasbags who confirm the ignorant opinions you already hold, especially wehen they are wrong. But that’s not truth – it is merely self-congratulation.
It’s like when Lynne Cheney makes the intentionally false statement that Liberals don’t believe in truth, when what she really means is that Liberals don’t believe in her truth.
As Neils Bohr once said, “The opposite of a trivial truth is false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.”
#46 fiskus jim: Ye, Gods! Of all the drivel I have read over the decades from undergrads trying to pee with the tall dogs, your comments are among the most obtuse. Perhaps with a little effort you could raise them to the level of banal.
If you are trying to perform a Jonathan Swift on the readers here, I suggest that you have fallen somewhat short of being Elmer Fudd.
Lessee now…. the rebirth of the Fairness [choke] Doctrine is being supported by Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and Maurice Hinchey, the 3 Stooges of ultra-lef lunacy. Even if I had no philosophical or constitutional reasons to oppose this agenda (and there are plenty), the fact that those three loons are for it is quite enough to put me in opposition to it.
So, let’s say the Fairness Doctrine gets reinstated. Then what?
Would a radio station that just broadcast MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech be forced to counter it with a speech from the Grand Dragon of the KKK?
Personally, I give people more credit. Everybody knows that the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Al Frankens, Amy Goodmans, etc. are biased. In this day and age, with satelite radio, cable tv, the internet, etc., you don’t have to look to hard to hear/see/read a myriad of viewpoints. Must we give government more power than it already has? Do we really want some untalented bureaucrats deciding which points of view we get to hear?
Hey, PJH67 – sorry, but you give these folks too much credit.
Heliotrope does NOT know that Rush Limbaugh is biased. He doesn’t even know that Rush is druggie who violates US drug laws whenever he feels like it and gets a pass because he’s conservative.
“Therefore, a balanced view should be enforced (and creationism/ID does not count since theology is no balance to the truth of factual science)”
Now wait just a minute. Who, exactly, gets to determine what is a “valid” response and what isn’t? You? No thank you. Why doesn’t ID count? Because YOU think it’s invalid? What about all of the people that don’t? Oh wait, you only want YOUR view of what is valid put on the air.
So much for your “fairness” doctrine.
NEXT!!!
“What the Fairness Doctrine does is to ensure that when political speech is broadcast, the American People are given the chance to hear the opposing point of view. All true Americans want to hear opposing points of view because having that info means their decisions are informed, which is clearly in the national security interest of the United States.”
Which would be fine and dandy if there were no other outlets for them to get this information. But are you honestly trying to say that there are THAT many people out there who ONLY get their information from the radio? C’mon now. Get real. With all of the options available, any “true american” who wants all the information available will have NO problem getting it whenever they want.
Weak, WEAK argument.
I think I’ll just ignore this fiskhus jim guy. I’ve never seen so many unread words bloviated in defense of suppressing both free speech and free enterprise.
#48: Fiskhus Jim–
“As Neils Bohr once said, “The opposite of a trivial truth is false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.â€
Well, call me one of the great ignorant masses, then, because that statement by Neils Bohr just doesn’t make any sense. Was Dr. Bohr speaking about physics or philosophy? What was the context of the quote?
If the above is taken at face value, then if God exists is the Great Truth, then Atheism–that there is no God–is also true. I’d appreciate an elucidation.
Thank you!
If Americans wanted to listen to liberals on the radio, Air America wouldn’t be bankrupt right now, and National Public Radio wouldn’t need to constantly ask their “supporters” for donations to stay on the air. It’s as simple as that. What is “fair” about forcing people to hear a view point they don’t want to hear?
Here’s a scary thought: Fiskhus Jim and his ilk presuming to define fair and balanced….
In just these two sentences of his ["Heliotrope does NOT know that Rush Limbaugh is biased. He doesn’t even know that Rush is druggie who violates US drug laws whenever he feels like it and gets a pass because he’s conservative." ] Fiskus Jim parades a degree of bias, flawed assumptiveness, reality dissonance, and just pure crap that transcends “ludicrous.”
By the way, I am sure that Rush enjoyed his “pass” enormously…….not…
Excellent summary LaShawn. Excellent
#56 March Hare: Allow me to speak for friskus jim to your points about Neils Bohr and God.
As you know, Neils Bohr invented the slurpee and was confronted with the dilemma as to whether to deliver it as an Omega 3 enhancer or a basic source of fiber. Enter God, the great arbiter of all cosmic incontinence. God said: Let there be fiber and there was fiber and Neils Bohr went on to Popsicle research. However, friskus jim, brother to Jungle Jim, grabbed another vine and swung far for great distant trees. As luck would have it, he felt short of a full swing and was left dangling over the Great Limpopo River where he hangs to this day as kissing gouramis make passionate love to the soles of his feet.
I just love fisking bugaboos
@ # 15:Here’s a simple reason why the Fairness Doctrine is correct and just: no conservatives, no liberals own the airwaves. The broadcasters rent them from the American people.
Just who owns the airwaves? Different countries and cultures have a different opinion on that question, from None to Everyone to Pappa State. Lets’ look closer at our own assumptions. At the time that politicians decided that the airwaves belonged to we-the-people, they certainly didn’t understand the ramifications. First of all, ‘airwave’ is a misnomer. TV & AM/FM radio occupies a certain range of the electromagnetic spectrum. This spectrum covers the range of all elctromagnetic radiation (radiation, now there’s a bugaboo). All EM enegry at a certain wavelength has an associated frequency and photon energy. Hence EM is in effect on everything from the so-called airwaves to lights and beyond.
Taking the fairness (socialist) doctrine to logical conclusion would imply that regulators can regulate what light and any other uses of EM. Am I renting ‘lightwaves’ everytime I shine my flashlight across a field at night? I suppose you would be in favor of a bureaucrat telling me that if I use a red light for a certain amout of time, then I have to use a green one equally? How about if I nuke a chicken, would I have to nuke a tofu dish as well? Looking at another frequency range, if I took a digital picture of a ‘conservative’ celebrity, am I bound to offer Randi Rhodes equal time on my flash disk?
Before you dismiss these questions as straw-men, what of my wireless router and wireless phone. These devices also use the ‘airwaves’. Is there going to be some unelected official monitoring my useage and collecting rent on my lease of ‘public’ property. What of other devices that run on ‘free’ and unregulated frequencies. Using the trojan horse of fairness (socialist) doctrine, what’s to stop Komrade Kucinichsky from dictating my cell traffic.
In any case, as others have pointed out, the fairness doctrine was a useful, but simple-minded tool in its time as an anti-trust measure in the early days when startup costs to operate TV/AM/FM broadcast stations was very high. Part of that ‘ownership’ was to justify the distribution of allocated bandwidth to minimize frequency collision. Fair enough as that goes, in light of the rudimentary frequency controls that were state of the art at the time. To paraphrase Oldsmobile, “this ain’t your daddy’s airwaves anymore. Now we can pack an order of magnatude into the same given frequency. The cost of entry into modern broadcast media has fallen dramtically with more ways to deliver content that survival is simply a matter of business economics.
Simply put, we don’t need no stinking fairness doctrine, we want the freedom doctrine –
free to listen to who I want, any ole time
free to see who I want, any ole day
And that’s a truth you can bank on.
#58 Sweet Jan: friskus jim and I are twins separated at birth. As Mark Twain put it: He knows all there is to know and I know all the rest.
Thanks for your comments. I could never be that civil.
fiskhus @ # 19: Such license is granted by the People of the United States and its appropriate administrative bodies. No one has a right to that license and no one has a right to use the public spectrum to lie, cheat, steal, defraud or extort the People of the United States.
Are you sure about that? Is the spectrum innately public or just because some politicians say it’s so?
Maybe the spectrum should belong to whoever is putting up the money and infrastructure to use and run it?
I don’t question the right of government to regulate EM that could be physically harmful or lethal to those in its path. I just don’t see why the liberal Chicken Littles would think that the constitution needs help in regulating EM that could be harmful to their emotional wellbeing or lethal to their illogic.
If Harry Reid invokes every conceivable rule in order to hang onto earmarks, is that lying, cheating, stealing, defrauding or extorting the people of the US while claiming to fight the culture of corruption?
Helio;
In truth, I often find myself breathless with anticipation for a “Helio” post with its wit, consumate “unteachable” wisdom, humor, and artfully juxtaposed words that bring delight. The pleasure is all mine.
As far as the width and breadth of my civility…I am feeling “weally weally cwanky” in these politically correct days, but am mercifully assuaged by knowing that there are folks out there that don’t see the Gores,Pelosi’s,Moore’s, and Clintons of the world as beacons of truth and balance
Conservatives constantly claim that the media has a liberal bias. If that were true, then wouldn’t they be clamoring to get the fairness doctrine reinstated?
Helio, that was rather modest of you, indeed, Fishkiss/Bugaboo have a lot to be modest about. The mark of a learned man is when he can weave Mark Twain, God and the Great Limpopo River into Churchill-esque putdowns.
And the bit about running with big dogs had me ROTFLOL
To paraphrase Plato — “La Shawn speaks because she has something to say; Nutroots because they have to say something.â€
My last comment is floating in the stratosphere, so I will attempt to quickly reconstruct.
Helio;
I often find myself early anticipating a “Helio” post for its unabashed wit, “untaught” wisdom, equisite humor, and delightful juxtaposition of words.
As to civility…I am getting “weally weally cwanky” at our politically correct world with the Great Limpopo river wending through, but am mercifully assuaged by those in the blogosphere who “get it” and popsicles.
I work in the non-liberal media and the bottom line is that it sells. If it didn’t, then Rush and the others wouldn’t be all over the airwaves. It’s business and entertainment and the fact that they want the gov’t to control that aspect of the market is sick.
As for what’s motivating Moonbat Dennis, I believe that a chance encounter with the Komrade Kucinichsky at a concert by Mark, over at the Decision 08 blog, sheds light on why KK is pursuing the fairness (socialist) doctrine. Check it out at
http://decision08.net/2005/06/17/hillary-wins-first-straw-poll-of-the-season/
In a nutshell, KK’s run for POTUS in ‘04 wasn’t given fair exposure in the media and dadgummit, Dreamin’ Denny is gonna change that to ensure that he gets a fair amount of coverage in ‘08.
Lest the nutroots think we bought into ‘conservative’ politicians hook, line and sinker, John McVain is equally distasteful with his blatant repression of free speech during political campaigns under the banner of “fairness” that is BCRA. In fact, John is probably on board with this latest attack if he thinks it would help shut down voices on the right critical of him.
Simply put, I respect John for surviving POW camps, but valor in combat doesn’t automatically confer the mantle of leadership and general all-round expertise on any other subject aside from jockeying a fighter jet. As a maverick, he’s been wrong more often than not and is increasingly obsessed as if POTUS is due him by dint of ‘Nam.
Kinda remind me of a few other scary vets who could stand the heat of combat, but can’t stand being cross-examined on the debate floor.
Actually once one looks at the historic record, conservative ideas win out more often than not when given a fair chance at being heard. However liberal extremists tend to shout down conservative ideas by any means at their disposal. Example? Look at the recent appearances by conservative speakers at primarily liberal universities being shouted down by liberal students.
In regards to talk radio, the market dictates what succeeds. In this case, conservative radio has overwhelmingly been successful in the fair market system while liberal radio has failed nationally. Rush Limbaugh started the radio revolution in the 80’s and the talk radio format pretty much revitalized AM radio which by the 80’s had been greatly overtaken by FM. So since liberals couldn’t win in the marketplace, liberal politicians are now attempting (and failing for now) to legislate liberalism into radio.
So tristan, if that who you really are, I suggest you actually check the facts that you so dearly claim since what you posted is sorely lacking in regards to factual content.
Very profound, mssmith. An excellent analogy.
Actually the airwaves were originally considered to be free to use but soon had to be regulated in order to keep one broadcaster from overlapping others. In the United States, the FCC regulates commercial stations within these borders. So saying the “broadcasters rent them from the American people” isn’t very accurate.
As has been proven historically, the federal government has never been able to enforce “a balanced view” as you put it, Bugaboo. And what your plan boils down to is to squash the free market system which is why conservative radio has been succeeding these past two decades and while liberal radio has failed time and time again. Oh and NPR, being heavily subsidized, doesn’t count.
Ahhh…the last resort of the desperate liberal…can’t make a point so make personal attacks. Good job, Devil’s Advocate. You’ve just demonstrated stereotypical liberal extremism.
Oh fiskhus jim, it is a disingenuous claim you are making there. No one is abusing their license when it’s the free market that is dictating what form of commercial radio is succeeding. The “Fairness Doctrine” is not fair and is actually in opposition to the capitalistic form of business that works. And jim, the fact of the matter is that no one “owns the airwaves” just as no one owns the air you breath or the light that allows one to see.
I could go on exposing the falacies in the points the liberal commentors here have been making but the overabundance of ad hominem, non sequitur, strawman arguments, lack of factual content, etc. in their posts have overwhelmed me. I’m reading arguments from the liberal commentors steeped in socialism, touching on fascism and in some cases delving deeply into blatant censorship of conservative ideas which shows the hypocrisy of their own stances. One major point the liberals are overlooking is that if the “fairness doctrine” were ever reinstated, it would pretty much eliminate liberal talk radio as well since it has been historically shown that radio stations would rather drop ALL possible controversial talk than have to deal with the inconsistent application of the doctrine.
The “Fairness Doctrine” should not ever be reinstated.
quick question: did the micheal j. fox ads violate mccain-feingold?
AkaDad says:
“Conservatives constantly claim that the media has a liberal bias. If that were true, then wouldn’t they be clamoring to get the fairness doctrine reinstated?”
Ummmm…nope. Conservatives don’t believe we need daddy to tell us who to listen to. Furthermore, the liberal bias is exactly WHY the fairness doctrine would work to the dems advantage.
Unless you want to let US define what is liberal and needs a conservative counterpoint and vice-versa. Somehow, I don’t think that is what you and Fiskus have in mind, though.
You’d just rather implement this thing according to YOUR definition of who and what is liberal and conservative.
Rush? CONSERVATIVE! Must be balanced by a lib!
Katie Couric? Why, that’s straight up reporting! NO BIAS there, no need for a balancing point of view!
Am I right? No doubt NPR is already balanced and free of bias. Heck, that’s what you guys tell us already. (I’m hoping you can detect the sarcasm dripping from my keyboard)
Like Mark Clifton stated earlier, it’s a heads I win, tails you lose game for dems.
How ’bout a deal? You guys can implement the Fairness Doctrine if you agree to let me and my friends be in charge of defining what and who is liberal and what and who is conservative. Then you can make sure that each group gets equal air-time. It’s kind of like when you have to share a sandwhich..one person gets to cut it in half and the other gets to choose which half they want. Sound fair?
Nah..that’s not what you had in mind, now is it?
Here is the problem: the marketplace of ideas is being forced to compete with the marketplace of dollars.
When ratings and ad revenues are the main factors in who gets on the air, truth is sidelined in favor of pandering to an audience and purposely unbalanced rants that are entertaining but include only half the facts.
How does it serve our country to allow the truth to be sold to the highest bidder?
At the end of the day, it will never be possible for the country to come to a solid agreement of that which constitutes truth. The last time I checked, we could not even decide if PBS had a liberal bias or not and Tomlinson was crucified over the scenario.
Attempting to produce the truth by government fiat is a recipe for disaster.
The last thing that I want is for my government to ram ugly/vicous/execreble/unfunny/dishonest Air America down my throat.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Where I live, there is a Christian radio station that is stoutly against playing anything that might be harmful for young kids to hear. They decide, with that in mind, what types of commercials they will air. During this past election, before they would play any political ad, they would announce that the ad my not be suitable for young viewers – and that if they didn’t do so, they stood a chance of losing their FCC license. Now, they will be forced to air even more political statements, so as to be ‘fair’ when they don’t wish to have to air them at all. Hopefully, it won’t hurt their audience, as they are a ‘listener supported’ station.
Sometimes, I wish those in power would get hit on the head and have some sense knocked into them.
In relationship to #74:
Lack of money is what prevents liberal/leftist views from being aired? Ok, say that is true. The lack of money comes directly from the lack of interest of the potential listeners. Rush is successful because people listen and sponsors want to buy ads. Air America is in the dumper because people aren’t listening and they can’t attract sponsors.
Sounds like freedom of choice at work here. That’s precisely the freedom that the “Fairness Doctrine” seeks to restrict. Hinchey, Kucinich, and Sanders can’t stand the fact that their leftist views are not popular, so they seek to force those views down our throats.
There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. As with the so-called Campaign Finance Reform law, it seeks to infringe upon the 1st Amendment, not to support it.
In relationship to #78:
I don’t listen to Air America because I don’t like slanted commentary either way. What’s the point of feeding your biases? We should be challenging them to find out where the truth really lies.
The problem is that the truth isn’t sexy and entertaining. Being reasonable and balanced, though necessary for a properly informed electorate, doesn’t sell ads. What DOES sell ads is partisan name-calling and half-truths, on least on the right. (I’ll be a little snarky here and say that those on the left don’t listen to a Rush-alternative because they’re too reasonable and interested in the truth to enjoy such obvious partisan idiocy, but the truth may be that Rush is simply better at his job than Al Franken and his lot.)
What the Doctrine does is attempt to bring attention to the fact that truth is not a commodity like Widgets or cell phones. It’s far, far more important than any commodity, and there should not simply be different “versions” depending on the existing preferences of the customer. Such a situation would (will, rather, as this is the current state of things) fracture a democracy to the point where its politics become nothing but shouting matches and sanctioned idiocy. The airwaves belong to the public and are lent out to stations with the explicit understanding that their operations aim to contribute to the public good. Distorting or ignoring the truth to make money is clearly not helping the public. (And creating an equally distorted “truth” on the other side of the political aisle does not function to somehow balance things out.)
You can put me on record as wanting to force all news organizations as nonprofits. That people supposed to be telling us the truth are competing to entertain for profit is a travesty.
That should be “force all news organizations TO OPERATE as nonprofits”…
Tass and Isvestia worked that way.
Also, I’m not sure the purpose is to target shows like Rush’s. The Doctrine states that media outlets should “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” That’s quite vague.
The main purpose may actually be to make the (so-called “liberal”) TV news stop napping. I read an article a while ago (sorry, can’t be more specific) that said one reason the coverage surrounding the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was so unthinkingly favorable to the idea is because the Fairness Doctrine wasn’t around. The news shows would simply report that “Bush said X about Iraq,” and show the clip, and move on, even though many of us were left jumping up and down in front of the screen shouting “That’s not true! He’s lying! Why didn’t you say anything!”
They didn’t say anything because somehow pointing out that the President just made a false implication isn’t “news,” and without the Doctrine they felt justified to move on to stories about missing blonde teens without pointing it out…
Redbeard: How? As nonprofits? If that’s what you mean, I guess the Soviets had at least ONE good idea.
Wow La Shawn, you really brought out the libs with this post. Quite a few trolls as well.
I personally think that the free market will prevail and the idea that the government should be the overseers of free speech is an oximoron. Free speech is defense against who? The people? NO, the government. Putting the governmant in charge of regulating free speech is putting the fox in charge of the hen-house.
In scrolling the the comments, it appears that those glomming on to the idea of the Fairness Doctrine are missing the practical points which would underly such an undertaking…which isn’t a shocker given who stands on either side of the line.
Even if this were put into place again, how in the WORLD would it be reglated? Where there are more media outlets than anyone could possible comprehend or even read/hear/watch, how would this doctrine be implemented to actually work?
And, who decides what’s “fair” and what’s not?
People should be permitted to be critical consumers of the media. Channels of information should be open so that individuals can seek out what they are looking for as well as opinions on the other side.
The idea of thought/fairness police may be an interesting one to debate, but the practicality of it just doesn’t hold up given the overwhelming amount of information that would have to be monitored.
Sorry if I missed it in the comments above, but I second Heliotrope for Fairness Czar. Good luck.
How will you decide what is an equitable opposite voice?
Will Sean Hannity, for example, need to be ‘matched’ by a Liberal who draws the same number of listeners? “Houston, we got another problem.”
You couldn’t have parity if Rush Limbaugh’s opposite number is Dubuque Slim, Liberal voice of West Petunia, Ark. You’d have to match Rush (#1 Conservative) with a #1 Liberal with the same number of listeners. Otherwise, there’s no fairness in the Fairness Doctrine. Ooops.
Why does the government need to insure that I get the truth. I can look for it myself. There is also a supposition that anyone who listens to conservative radio is not smart and needs others to help us get the facts that we otherwise won’t.
If I’m not mistaken, this would only affect radio (conservative). What about other types of media. As others have said there are more than enough ways to get information. Why regulate only one.
I also think that it is dishonest for people to deny that the tv, cable and print news is biased to the left. If you are that worried about us getting the truth and you think that those forms of media are already balanced, just get the government to buy us dummies subscriptions to the NY Times.
Angryflower wonders:
Which is why they [Republicans] did so well in the last house election [a war of ideas].
What ideas did the Democrats push forward? didn’t they essentially run on a vote for us, we’re not Republicans platform? except for the Blue Dog Democrats, who ran to the right of their opponents?
“force all news organizations TO OPERATE as nonprofitsâ€â€¦
Comment by Thomas — 01.19.07 @ 9:38 am
I guess the Soviets had at least ONE good idea.
Comment by Thomas — 01.19.07 @ 9:50 am
Ha!! I knew it!! Regulation of the news is a Commie idea, and the Commies are still pushing it!!
Um, Thomas, don’t tread on me with whatever your brand of “truth” may be, if these are your ideas about how our nation’s airways should be governed with respect to the First Amendment.
The First Amendment doesn’t protect the “truth”, nor is there a guarantee that the “truth” will always be contained in public discourse. (To a degree, of course, libel and slander laws promote truth and punish the desimination of falsities, but that’s a legal, not a political, argument …) What the First Amendment DOES do, though, is protect “viewpoints” and guarantees they will be allowed in the public discourse.
The “Fairness Doctrine”, if resurrected, would have a practical effect that isn’t literally stated within the text of the regulation itself — to wit: it will suppress viewpoints. Its practical effect will be to suppress viewpoints in one discreet medium of the public discourse, the medium of AM radio. And, it’s absolutely certain, if resurrected, to impact the currently popular programs where the viewpoints are expressed on AM radio.
When it was announced a few years ago that “Air America” was coming to the AM airwaves, did the Republican administration and the Republican majorities in Congress raise a hue and cry for the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine? Of course not. Why, then, when Democrats now hold majorities in both houses, has resurrection of the doctrine become the goal?
The answer is transparent, and to deny it is disingenuous — the Dems dispise Rush even more than they dispise Bush, and they really, really, really, and I mean really hate the fact that Rush remains very, very popular, in spite of all the names they call him.
Do I recall correctly that, when Fiskhus Jim ran out of all other bloviations — er, excuse me, his viewpoints — his last post (at #52) was a blast at Rush???
TaterCon
Wow.
I wonder how many detractor’s of the fairness doctrine understand the concept of scarcity, how it affected the evolution of the faurness doctrine, and why they are so up in arms about what is being talked about. Can anyone here dredge up an example of how the Fairness Doctrine was implemented before Reagan canned it?
Look, in short the concept of scarcity works thusly: Newspapers and print media are not considered to suffer from scarcity because, it is argued, that the costs of starting a newsletter, and getting it duplicated, and then passing it out to people is not so prohibitive that an ordinary person, with a little work, can produce a printed source. Because of that low barrier to entry, the fairness doctrine never applied to print media.
The fairness doctrine applied to broadcast media, both TV and Radio, because of the limited number of frequencies available. This scarcity of frequencies, and the barrier of entry to starting radio or television station, is what drove the fairness doctrine in the first place.
How was the fairness doctrine employed? One such case cited as an example of first ammendment law applied in cases of the fairness doctrine allowed a pastor to rebutt a news story run against him. The news station gave the pastor pre-recorded a response to the story run against him and demanded the news station air his rebuttal. The news station refused to air his rebuttal, or carry his story. The Fairness Doctrine was cited by the pastor, and was upheld by courts. The courts cited the refusal of the news station to carry any form of a rebuttal, either the pre-recorded rebuttal, or the news station’s version of the pastor’s rebuttal.
So in effect, if the new fairness doctrine is applied like the old one then as stories and programs are run, media stations may be contacted by a side of the story that may have not had their version aired. In effect, if CNN ran a story that critized Conservative Senator “X”, then Senator “X” could apply the fairness doctrine to demand that his or her side of the story be presented on CNN for an equal measure of time. The same could apply to radio. Rush gives a speech and brands senator “X” a traitor to America by disagreeing with a White House policy. Senator “X” contacts Rush and demands to present their side of the story. What can Rush do here? The fairness doctrine of old would allow the Sentor to present their side of the story, but it also would allow Rush to interrogate said Senator after that Senator had a chance to present their side of the story.
End result? Hard to say. I don’t know if the current proposal will follow old lines. Also, since there is no scarcity involving Internet streams, satelite radio, podcasts or cable TV, then the doctrine will most likely not apply to those mediums. Think on that.
How about them first 100hours?
Helping the poor and students.
How liberal.
Next thing you know they’ll want to stop America from putting the mentally retarded to death.
Do liberals have ANY shame?
How about them first 100 hours?
Zero is to be raised to over $7.00 an hour and now all union contracts will be goosed up by the same per cent in order to maintain parity. But, of course, prices will not rise to cover the increase in the fixed cost of labor. The invisible hand of Lady Nancy of Pelosi will watch over us. And the EIC (earned income credit), the food stamp thresh-hold and Section 8 are all indexed to the minimum wage, so we essentially have a whopping tax increase, as well.
Of course, college tuition should be supported no matter how outrageous. College tuition is far ahead of health care in its rate of increase. In fact, it increases at several multiples above inflation and the Cost of Living Index. But that’s OK. We will finance it through the tax payers.
How conservative to be jaded by the mathematics and the facts.
Next thing you know they’ll want to stop America from putting the mentally retarded out on the streets to reduce about 70% of the “homeless” in the country and give them proper care.
Do conservatives have ANY shame?
P.S. The ethics bill is certainly full of dodges and feints. Is there a difference when liberals are minding the hen house? Do tell!
“Can anyone here dredge up an example of how the Fairness Doctrine was implemented before Reagan canned it?”
Leftcoaster, at 90
Well, in the broadest sense, Lefty, the implementation prevented discourse of any kind, and that point was made in La Shawn’s original post. Why become involved in political discourse at all, if it involves the hiring of lawyers versed in FCC regs to insure all viewpoints are covered, and at the risk of lawsuit if not?
“The fairness doctrine applied to broadcast media, both TV and Radio, because of the limited number of frequencies available. This scarcity of frequencies, and the barrier of entry to starting radio or television station, is what drove the fairness doctrine in the first place.” Lefty, id.
It’s a different world in 2007 than it was in the 1980’s, Lefty. Anybody with a $499 computer from BestBuy (after rebates) and a few monthly bucks for Internet access can become a media outlet for the exercise of viewpoint dissemination. It’s an archaic notion for government to try to single out the AM radio spectrum to decree “Thou shalt be the ones who provide equal time to opposing viewpoints” when nary another of the modern mediums are similarly singled out. There’s no scarcity anymore, Lefty — only a sense from your side of the aisle that the most popular medium of the conservatives must be controlled.
TaterCon
This will be only step 1 as it always is with the Lefties. They don’t like dissenting voices. Of course they will get around to cable, Internet and satellite radio! It’s the natural progression of commies. A little taste of power plus mistrust of the people always leads to the path of communism.
Thomas: how does being non-profit help? There are HUNDREDS of non-profits in operation NOW specifically created to push a particular political agenda. Non-profits don’t even come CLOSE to holding a monopoly on truth. Quite the opposite, actually.
-how in the WORLD would it be reglated? (sic)
I don’t know. How was it regulated before? You know, in the 40-50 years it was in place… There is no great mystery about this, since radio and television have been around it’s been in place many more years than it’s NOT been in place. And what have we seen since? A proliferation of “truthiness” and Rush-style pandering that plays to the worst of people’s instincts, allegedly informing them while actually leaving them in the dark. After Bush’s (re?)election in 2004, fully 30-40 percent of the population believed Saddam was behind the 9/11 crimes. The Bush administration repeatedly made that implication, and the media repeatedly refused to correct it.
-What the First Amendment DOES do, though, is protect “viewpoints†and guarantees they will be allowed in the public discourse.
The Fairness Doctrine in no way inhibits the expression of viewpoints, nor their inclusion in public discourse. These are the kinds of strawman arguments those on the right seem to consistently bring up, mislabeling something right out of the gate and then shouting down a good idea because they’ve misinterpreted it’s meaning. This is a part of the poison that Rush, Coulter, etc. have injected into our society–those who disagree are branded traitors, liars, etc., and are not listened to. These people present a “truth,” e.g., Rush’s claim that Michael J. Fox was somehow “faking” his symptoms, and there is no rebuttal allowed. How does this help our search for actual truth?
The problem is, real truth is kind of like trans fats–it’s hard to know if it’s really in there. Trusting that consumers have the time and wherewithal to search and find the real facts of every important issue is not particularly reasonable. The problem with having EVERYTHING run as a market is the same problem we run into with direct democracy–if people are constantly having to act as a rational actor in a market just to live their lives, they A) won’t have time to do anything else, like work and spend time with their families, and B) cannot possibly be well-informed enough, educated enough, or have the time needed to find information relevant to every choice that needs to be made. One example of this 401ks–when employees have to opt in, a large percentage do not; when they are automatically enrolled and given the chance to opt out, very few do. The obvious choice is to have one, yet many people need help seeing it.
Buying into a version of the truth that fits our existing prejudices is easy. But living in a democracy demands of us that we do more than this. A democracy will fall into disrepair if the electorate has lost its ability to listen to various viewpoints, and to change their minds when they hear a better argument. When a conservative hears a liberal viewpoint or a liberal a conservative one, rolling their eyes and muttering about “liars” or “commies” or “reactionary nitwits” is not helpful and does not help ourselves or the country move forward. We need to promote a political climate where both sides of an issue are regularly presented and views on both sides can be discussed rationally, with people free to change their minds. If we let this disastrous “football game” model continue, the country will blunder into an Iraq every decade and we’ll continue to be unable to fix problems at home.
-how does being non-profit help? There are HUNDREDS of non-profits in operation NOW specifically created to push a particular political agenda.
Most newspapers, nightly TV news shows, etc. were not founded to push a particular agenda. Making them nonprofit would allow them to ignore ratings so long as they could break even overall, allowing them to: A.) Put on the truth even when the truth is boring; B.) Stop pushing “news lite” stories about abducted blonde teens and celebrities simply because they get ratings; C) Have a better chance of avoiding conflicts of interest in reporting on corporations; and D) Discuss issues in a more thoughtful, rational way rather than having the “liberal-vs.-conservative” matches that entertain but often fail to enlighten.
And: E) Reduce the benefit of being “first on the scene,” allowing them to gather all the facts before reporting; F) reduce the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality that contributes to distorted views on risk and race.
-Well, in the broadest sense, Lefty, the implementation prevented discourse of any kind
IF true, is this really a bad thing? Isn’t having a media that merely strives to present us with facts and let us decide what to think on our own preferable to having our national discourse dictated by unfunny lefty blowhards and obese drug-addict know-nothings with an obvious interest in keeping us outraged at “the other side” (you know, the millions of dollars, the fame, the power…)?
Preventing ON-AIR discussion does not prevent discourse everywhere else, which is where it truly belongs. Or do you prefer being told what to think (not at all like those damned Commies do it, though, of course)??
#90 Leftcoaster notes: “The fairness doctrine applied to broadcast media, both TV and Radio, because of the limited number of frequencies available. This scarcity of frequencies, and the barrier of entry to starting radio or television station, is what drove the fairness doctrine in the first place.”
Emphasis on “in the first place.” Those were the days of the Marconi system and vacuum tube power.
There is no scarcity of frequencies with the discrete broadcasting and receiving systems of today. (Think wireless systems and microwaves.)
So long as radio hooks itself to the archaic AM/FM broadcast model, the “scarcity” of frequencies remains.
Leftcoaster’s concept of how the fairness doctrine would work is not consistent with how it worked in the past. Radio stations were not willing to risk having to spend the time and dollars negotiating with arbitrators over the fairness doctrine, so they stayed away from political discourse of almost any nature. There was no “talk radio” to speak of.
The threat inherent in the “fairness doctrine” is the understanding that programs featuring politics will disappear. Since “talk radio” is dominated nationwide by conservative talk radio, liberals have nothing to lose and everything to gain by squelching free speech on the air waves.
Rush Limbaugh has mega millions. He bulled his way over the McCain-Feingold “restrictions” and no one had the temerity to seek an injunction against him. I suspect he would “middle finger” a reinstated Fairness Doctrine as well. The Supreme Court has always been fairly consistent on the protection of political speech.
Maybe Congress can resurrect the Fairness Doctrine and force it past the President’s veto. But can it survive Supreme Court scrutiny? If it can, the speech clause of the First Amendment has been stripped of all its meaning. Liberals will have to do a lot of court stocking with Ninth Circuit type loonies before that will happen.
At that point, we will no longer be a nation of laws. We will be ruled by an oligarchy of leftest judges who are beyond the reach of the ignorant masses.
Wow, Thomas, did you not research the history of the Fairness Doctrine at ALL?? How can you say that “The Fairness Doctrine in no way inhibits the expression of viewpoints, nor their inclusion in public discourse.” ???
Go look up how FDR, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon used it to silence opponents.
“As Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
There are numerous examples and it takes very little effort to find them.
#99 Thomas asks: “Isn’t having a media that merely strives to present us with facts and let us decide what to think on our own preferable to having our national discourse dictated by unfunny lefty blowhards and obese drug-addict know-nothings with an obvious interest in keeping us outraged at “the other side†(you know, the millions of dollars, the fame, the power…)?”
“Facts.” What are the “facts” about the war in Iraq? (Please: no bias, point of view, or slant either overt or through omission.)
I breathlessly await your instruction.
Thomas says “Making them nonprofit would allow them to ignore ratings so long as they could break even overall”
Okay. Now they are ignoring ratings. Meaning no one is listening. So how are you going to force people to listen to it? Or is this not about having people listening, but rather, as many believe, just about shutting the Right up?
I, too, sit with bated breath for an exposition of the real live “facts” about the Iraq war. Something other than “Bush lied;people died” would be refreshing.
Even if an undisputed fact/facts is/are presented, how does one ensure that ALL of the facts are presented on an issue so that “truth” emerges? One can paint an egregiously false picture while only telling the truth, by simply being selective witht he facts that one presents..
Do I hear crickets?
Very loud crickets.
I know! I can solve Thomas’s problem. He can have his doctrine, as long as he’ll leave it up to US to choose what are the ‘facts’ and what is the ‘truth’. Why not us? Somebody’s gonna have to choose, no?
Some would argue that liberal view already get plenty or airtime – on television. I would surmise that the popularity of conservative talk radio is directly related to the lack of conservative thought presented on television. Today, views can be found in many more places than when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, and when talk radio got started. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea. I can pretty much guess it wouldn’t be applied to television. Also, when it was in force, was there any constitutional case brought against it? Would it withstand an constitutional challenge today, if it were brought back?
I shudder at the thought of ANOTHER gubmint agency and the salaries, the pensions, the facilities, the lawyers that will be required, and the list goes on and on and on and on.
Is there no end to the ways that can be conjured to take a bite out of the taxpayer’s pocket?
The irony is that taxpayers will basically be paying for the privilege of having their program content selected for them. Ergo, according to the elite, the average taxpayer is smart enough to make the money but too dumb to figure out how to use it.
Thomas must be busy working up all of those ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ for us.
Or, if we are lucky, he’s actually researching the history of how the Fairness Doctrine has been used in the past instead of telling us how it’ll be in the future with all of those ‘disinterested’ non-profits.
SOMEBODY has to save us from ourselves, Jan!
“We need to promote a political climate where both sides of an issue are regularly presented and views on both sides can be discussed rationally, with people free to change their minds.” — Thomas, at 96.
T, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond, and I respect your thoughts. I just disagree with ‘em.
To “promote” a political climate opens the question to “Who promotes it?” If “promote” equates to “enforce”, then it means the state must promote the political climate, and under your “ideal”, it appears enforcing regular presentation of opposing ideas becomes the job of government.
Do you want to leave it to government regulators to choose who does the “regular presentations” of “both sides of an issue” — i.e. opposing ideas? Let’s reduce this to the absurd — let’s say a commenter wishes to extoll the virtues of racial harmony and wishes to point out the instances in the community where it has been observed. Does a Klaxton (Fruitcake) of the Klan get to regularly present his opposing view, armed with a threat to the AM radio outlet of FCC intervention on his behalf?
My point? I prefer that today’s myriad of media marketplaces be available to allow freedom to choose where and how viewpoints and ideas will be received. The marketplace will take care of marginalizing the Klan Klaxton’s ideas, and I won’t be forced to listen to a “regular presentation” of such marginal ideas in the name of fair presentation and equal time. The idiot’s audience will be small, there will be no paying sponsors, and no sane businessman will risk losing his wallet while the Klan Klaxton Fruitcake bloviates his bile.
T-man, you’ve used the terms “strawman arguments”,
“mislabeling”, “shouting down” and “poison” in your first paragraph after quoting from my prior post. I’ll defend your right to do that, but I’ll also note my disinterest in being on the receiving end of such labels being applied to my viewpoints. Put another way, I’ll defend your freedom to use this media — an Internet blog — for debate, even with the use of character labels.
In return, it’s my hope that your side of the aisle will allow unrestricted presentation of conservative viewpoints in all of the arenas of discourse, even when you disagree with the content. If folks get tired of conservatism, get tired of Rush or Sean or any of the others — well, let’s let the marketplace take care of it, not the government….. in the meantime, maybe you could tune in to NPR while tooling around town?
Or, maybe we could just meet on common ground — you got Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN radio?
Stacey;
Wanna bet that those who think that we, the common man, must be saved from ourselves, don’t consider themselves to be among the common man? One can imagine that those who support the Fairness Doctrine are comfortable with their media choices. It’s just everyone else’s that needs remediation.
Aaarrgggh!
Jan,
And yet the lefties are puzzled when someone insinuates that they are arrogant!
Jan, Stacy, Helio … have y’all got the comic panel “Pluggers” in your daily funnies? I’m thinking that conservatives who listen to AM radio are viewed as the “Pluggers” of the myriad mass media’s audience …. and for that reason, the elitists see AM radio as an easy target to tackle. Pluggers, after all, are pre-modern, and the “Fairness Doctrine” applied to AM radio would place conservatives in their pre-modern mode — out of sight and out of mind.
TaterCon
Leftcoastie @ #90, wow all your canards have been dispensed with in one form or another before you even jumped in. Did you read any of the comments before bloviating? I addressed the canard of scarcity in #61 above.
Oh yeah, silly me, you just had to say something, anything, rather than something to say to the presented detractions.
Oh well, all 10K of you trolls can just keep pounding away on the keyboards and maybe, just maybe, you’ll collectively come up with a paragraph or two that actually makes sense.
TaterCon,
Never heard of it! But how these people can justify targeting AM radio only is beyond me. It is hardly the only medium that is lacking infinite opportunity.
Of course, they are anxious to get at the internet, too…they’ll have to work up a new argument for that one.
TaterCon;
You asked if I had ever seen the “Pluggers” in my daily. I almost quipped “no, cuz I avoid the MSM/print media so that I can stay immersed in the baised lop-sided world of talk radio…
But, the truth is, I read several papers a day but geneally skip the funnies for lack of time.
I look forward to it with pleasure.
Stacey, TaterCon. The AM spectrum is just a trojan horse.
Once they have the Fairness (Socialist) Doctrine in place, it’s a small leap to include any other method of distribution via electromagnetics (EM). Fiberoptics? EM. Harddrives? EM. DVD? EM. The only thing F(s)D probably won’t touch is the print media.
But then again, if a couple of judges can find the right to gay marriage in a 200 year old document, they’ll find a F(s)D angle to print as well. And that’s the Secular Progressive scheme all along.
Heck, I’ve got to patiently read the Sports section while my wife hogs the comics!! I generally skip the op-ed page here in Wilmington, NC — but then again, it’s a NY Times owned local. There are days when Krugman, Ivens and Dowd are all there, together. And even though I’ve paid for my paper, I’m free to ignore them.
You’re right, Andy. And before you know it, them libruls, socialists and their regulators will be tryin’ to tell me whose barbecue I gotta eat, too. Might decree I gotta eat that mustard based “hash” outta Columbia, SC instead of God’s ordained Eastern NC style whole hog smoked over hickory or oak, seasoned with vinegar based pepper sauce…
Our stuff won’t make it to your stomach … it’ll stick to your heart on the way down!
TaterCon
I went away for a while. Didn’t hear any crickets over here.
Really, holding up my end of the argument against numerous posters would take up a bit more time than I can afford, but I’ll try to respond to the major points.
Stacey–you’re right, I didn’t properly do my homework, and for that I apologize. I was arguing from a theoretical perspective, from the wording of the Doctrine itself, while ignoring the actual history of it. It appears it was abused in the past and that stations generally disliked it and felt it had a chilling effect on the discussion of important issues. Poor past implementation, however, does not mean poor future implementation.
Just thinking about it for a few minutes, I can envisage a scenario in which a number of semi-governmental organizations and/or affiliated NGOs assigned “fairness ratings” to broadcast media, which would then be averaged and stations beyond a certain standard deviation in either direction would be flagged for scrutiny. That’s just a quick idea, I’m sure others could do better. I understand why many posters are concerned with the “who” of it all, but done properly it could be managed in an unbiased fashion. That’s why we have the rule of law, bureaucratic procedures, and the field of statistics, right? Maybe I’m just too optimistic…
–Okay. Now they are ignoring ratings. Meaning no one is listening. So how are you going to force people to listen to it? Or is this not about having people listening, but rather, as many believe, just about shutting the Right up?
It is not about shutting the Right up. It is about creating a more rational system for news production wherein presenting the facts in a balanced manner is paramount, and partisan commentary is left for non-broadcast media (the internet, etc.). Commentary from either side of the aisle should not be mixed in with the presentation of the facts of a given matter. Of course media can never be perfect, there’s still the problem of being selective with what gets covered or the facts presented. But I think a properly implemented Fairness Doctrine would actually help, with broadcasters knowing they are being evaluated rather than being free to simply slap together and air whatever they want with no repercussions. I would rather have certain issues not be covered than have all issues covered in a biased way. I don’t expect to force anyone to listen to news that is more rational and balanced and less sensationalistic and biased. To me, consumption of biased news seems a much bigger problem than lack of consumption of news. The former leaves people feeling knowledgeable even though they aren’t, the latter creates no illusions.
As for Iraq… I’m not sure why it’s suddenly my responsibility to tell you the facts about what’s happening. But I can tell you this: death and violence is generally more newsworthy than elementary school openings and new pizza parlors. News is limited in scope because there are a limited number of journalists and consumers of news have a limited number of time in which to consume news. With this in mind, what is the most effective use of news? To point out problems so they can be fixed. I’m guessing you want to say that the media is obsessing over the violence in Baghdad and ignoring stability elsewhere. So, in that vein, here are some rhetorical questions: Why did the news focus so obsessively on NYC on 9/11? After all, planes weren’t crashing into buildings in MOST of America… And why focus on Darfur? Most of the Sudan isn’t experiencing such violence… Do you see my point? Additionally, I would argue that the “liberal media bias” is perceived to exist only because of the difference generally between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives by definition dislike changing things, and the entire purpose of the news media is to show things that need to be changed/fixed. Hence, because the news doesn’t cover things that aren’t, well, NEWS, (”Lots of people went to church today…”; “Most Iraqis didn’t die today…”) they are seen as favoring liberal causes.
–If folks get tired of conservatism, get tired of Rush or Sean or any of the others — well, let’s let the marketplace take care of it, not the government…..
Here I’ll be a little incendiary. Conservative commentators are more popular because they play to people’s baser instincts. It’s human nature to dislike change, be afraid of new things, different things, and people who act/think differently, and this is exactly what Rush and his ilk espouse. Someone getting on the air with a Mr. Rogers-esque message of “Hey, let’s be tolerant and respect one another,” doesn’t stand a chance. It’ boring. It seems like grade-school-level pandering. It’s more fun to bash gays, immigrants, Ted Kennedy, and that faceless mass of “secular liberals” who supposedly hate “your” God. But the fact is, that’s not what people need to hear. It helps nothing, and the distressing thing is that listeners are turned more and more to such a mindset the longer they listen, without even realizing it.
Liberal radio shows fail because they can’t do the same sort of bashing, at least not well. It’s against the fundamental principles of what it means to be a liberal.
-T-man, you’ve used the terms “strawman argumentsâ€,
“mislabelingâ€, “shouting down†and “poison†in your first paragraph after quoting from my prior post.
Sorry, Tatercon, I wasn’t referring to anyone on this forum, really, just thinking of how the Republican party has been operating since 2001, particularly the”estate tax/death tax.”
-Is there no end to the ways that can be conjured to take a bite out of the taxpayer’s pocket?
Jan, I’d advise you to compare the costs of the war in Iraq with the costs of, say, the food stamps or welfare program. And look up how much the government has grown under Bush Jr. vs. Clinton.
No one has addressed my list of advantages gained by forcing news organizations to be non-profit…
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…â€
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…
It wouldn’t force people to stop talking, it would force them to talk twice as much. Or get someone else to do the other half.
Thomas, you are dealing with quite a few of us!
You say:
“It is about creating a more rational system for news production wherein presenting the facts in a balanced manner is paramount”
Thomas, it is genuinely hard for me to credit the idea that the government (or anyone else) is going to enforce a balanced, non-biased news cast. I don’t think you and I could agree on what is non-biased. Do you? So who is going to impartially do this?
You say “Poor past implementation, however, does not mean poor future implementation.”
This is a perpetual failing of liberals. Why do they always think MORE of something that didn’t work in the past is going to work in the future? ‘Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed..yada yada. It’s wasted, I know.
I think you misunderstood the request for the ‘facts’ on the war in Iraq. In addition to pointed out the obvious slant in the news,
I believe when Heliotrope requested “no bias, point of view, or slant either overt or through omission” that, in addition to pointed out the obvious slant in the news, he may have been challenging you to see the impossibility of what you are suggesting. Even someone who WANTS to produce that perfect product could not do it.
So in addition to the (I think ridiculous)assumption that our government WOULD attempt to enforce this impartially (WHO would?), you have the problem of HOW. How can it possibly be enforced, when it seems impossible to do even if you want to do it? (Not that those in the NEWS business shouldn’t TRY – a complaint we conservatives have been making for some time.)
By the way, why are we talking about newscasts, anyway? The Fairness Doctrine is being proposed for AM radio..and being targeted at TALK RADIO. Rush has never presented his show as a news cast…it is a talk radio show!
Your point that death and violence is newsworthy, but good news is not has a certain level of truth. But tell me this…why is death and violence only newsworthy when it is bad news for US?
When we inflict death and violence on the enemy (have a victory in battle), this is NOT, I repeat NOT considered newsworthy by the MSM. However, if WE are the ones dying (bad news for us) THAT is newsworthy. If Iraqi civilians are dying (bad news for US), THAT is newsworthy.
You said
“Additionally, I would argue that the “liberal media bias†is perceived to exist only because of the difference generally between conservatism and liberalism. the entire purpose of the news media is to show things that need to be changed/fixed.”
Hmmmm….no it isn’t. This statement is actually VERY revealing.
Let’s try this: The entire purpose of the news media is to report the……..NEWS!
This is a PERFECT example of one way liberal bias operates! And it is invisible to you, as a liberal.
You cannot decide that something needs to be changed/fixed without using your JUDGMENT. Your judgment is by necessity a reflection of your bias. And what is the prevailing bias of those in the media??
So I would change your statement: I would argue that the “liberal media bias†is *NOT* perceived to exist *BY LIBERALS* only because of the difference generally between conservatism and liberalism.
And that only accounts for the INADVERTENT bias!
As far as “conservative commentators playing to people’s baser instincts” and that nonsense about “dislike change, be afraid of new things, different things, and people who act/think differently”…gimme a break, will you!?! Try listening to it before you expound on it.
The left can convince some of the people (you, maybe?) who don’t listen to conservatives that this is what is presented, but somehow, I just go on believing my lying ears!
By the way, what you are advocating here goes WAY, WAAAY beyond what even the most radical of leftists that I have heard (publically, at least) as the way to enforce the Fairness Doctrine. You do realize you are suggesting we put the government in charge of the dissemination of our news? Does the first amendment mean nothing to you?
Thomas, as far as this goes – “No one has addressed my list of advantages gained by forcing news organizations to be non-profit..”
I would think that this is clear..have we not disagreed with you that such advantages would even exist?
Refresh my memory if there is something I am forgetting here, but I see no advantages.
I could go on and on about unbalance reporting about Iraq. Jamil Hussein, anyone?? American reporters won’t go where they need to, to get an accurate story. Instead, they rely on persons with unknown loyalties, and the AP (in this particular case) ends up reporting lies as truth, and when confronted about the identity of a source they used in 61 news stories, they dissemble, and when at least one story is proven to not be true, they never issue a correction or a retraction. I’m sorry, I can’t trust most news organizations to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And what I know about this, I know from internet and talk radio sources – nothing from any mainstream media outlet.
Now, on to “presenting both sides” of an issue. What is there are more than just two sides? Even for those of us who say, support the President in regard to Iraq, we are still no a monolithic body. There are many opinions as to what needs to be done to achieve victory – even among those in the military. Or how about the issue of illegal immigration? There are definitely more than two views on how to deal with that sticky little issue.
I used to not listen to Rush (or watch when he had that 30 min TV show). I thought he was a chauvanistic tool. As I have become more politically aware, I will listen to him. Yes, he can be over the top, but he also has thought-provoking commentary.
This does sound like an attempt to silence AM talk radio. Forcing a station to provide “equal time” doesn’t mean people will listen.
And as others have pointed out, do we really want to give the KKK or neo-Nazis a pulpit from which to spew their hatred? I’m sure if I thought about it some more, I could come up with other groups that we, as a society, wish to marginalize because their views are abhorrant to a free and open society.
I don’t want any bureaucrat deciding what is fair and balanced discussions of politics.
“No one has addressed my list of advantages gained by forcing news organizations to be non-profit…”
I already resent that my tax dollars go to fund NPR. When I think of other “public” models, I look at England & Germany.
Own a TV or radio? Gotta pay the broadcasting tax. In Germany, this amounts to a couple of hundred dollars per year for the 1st set and progressive fees for each additional set. And to ensure that taxes are paid, the TV tax man is empowered to walk into your private abode and hunt for unreported sets, this on top of driving around neighborhoods with sophistcated equipment to detect if one has a receiver in the abode and matching the address against their database. Talk about warrantless scanning.
So what does one get for their taxes, well the BBC is hardly the paragon of unbiased news, let alone the truth. Quite telling when the British Forces in Iraq block out their own broadcasting company. Sure the system ‘works’ for producing quality programming that normal markets wouldn’t buy, but then again, the free market was never given the chance to do so.
I lived in Germany when I was a kid and asked my parents about those vehicles driving around with big antennae on top. I couldn’t understand, as a child, why they had to pay for TV, per TV…
Thomas’ philosophical problem seems to have as its root the leftist idea that the federal government is here to take care of us like some sort of nanny looking after small children. Two things are wrong with that idea.
First, it’s not the job of the federal government to run our daily lives, put our socks on for us, and make sure we get to the school bus on time.
And secondly, the federal government is not even remotely capable of doing so, even if it were charged with that duty.
Thomas, with all due respect, and with sincerity, let me suggest that you go back to the United States Constitution. If you have trouble understanding the intent of any given section, I recommend The Federalist Papers. You will come away from that course of study knowing that the federal government’s powers are limited and strictly enumerated. The 9th and 10th Amendments are particularly instructive in this regard.
I used to think that subscribing to the newspaper was a patriotic duty. Freedom of the press is helped by publishers having customers. When the bias in the news [not just the opinion page] became unbearable, I stopped subscribing. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to ask Congress to pass a law to force newspapers cover the news more fairly.
And by the way, the reason Democrats won in the last election was because many voters who expected Republicans to cut spending became disgusted when their Republican representatives began spending like a bunch of drunken Democrats.
Thomas said; Conservative commentators are more popular because they play to people’s baser instincts.
Are you serious?
I listened to liberal talk radio for a year on the weekends (I couldn’t get conservative talk radio in my area) and I was stunned by the vitriol and the general ugliness that was endemic. One of the biggest myths ever perpetrated is that conservative talk radio is more divisive/base than conservative talk radio.I think it might be more fair to say that the division stems from the disgruntlement of those who no longer have a lock on the “facts” and the dissemination of news and commentary.
Thomas also said;”Jan, I’d advise you to compare the costs of the war in Iraq with the costs of, say, the food stamps or welfare program. And look up how much the government has grown under Bush Jr. vs. Clinton.”
I am glad that you agree that government spending is out of control.
Quite frankly, I am appalled by the growth in government under the Bush administration (though it amuses me that the Dems give themselves a pass given that they have sponsored far more spending bills.) which is exactly why I don’t think we need another government bureaucracy with all that entails.
Thomas said; “Thomas also said;â€Jan, I’d advise you to compare the costs of the war in Iraq with the costs of, say, the food stamps or welfare program”
Estimates are that the Iraq war cost will approach $12 billion/month this year due to the cost of replacing equipment. While that is a staggering amount, compare that to:
$300 billion on federal grants
$536 billion on public k-12 ed.
$2.798 trillion on federal budget (when one adds in state and local, the amount is hard to wrap one’s mind around)
39% of the federal budget are on these alone: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
$1.7 trillion on mandatory & entitlement spending (8% of that is interest)
$127 billion was cut in the federal budget deficit
in 2006
Last year, we spent close to half of the cost of a year’s spending on the the Iraq war just on earmarks slipped into appropriations bill with no discussion, no attribution, and no justification made in committee.
“Here I’ll be a little incendiary. Conservative commentators are more popular because they play to people’s baser instincts. It’s human nature to dislike change, be afraid of new things, different things, and people who act/think differently, and this is exactly what Rush and his ilk espouse.”
1. Here is somebody who has obviously never listened to Rush. Listen for a couple of weeks for a change, much as you might “dislike” it; I dare you to act/think differently. Be not afraid of new things!
2. Stacey had it right; he wants to save us from ourselves.
3. If left-wing radio in any way mirrors left-wing blogging, I’d tune out under a Fairness Doctrine. My stomach has turned at some of the nasty obscenity I’ve read on left-wing blogs. (E.g., Rick Santorum’s left-wing attackers. Sickening.)
Why is it liberals always assume the masses are stupid?
Susannah;
Liberals “love” the common man as long as they don’t have to be near them…interact with them… or allow their children to associate with them.
The funny part is that they know very little about the “common man” and are more appalled by their imaginative & often hysterical rendering than they are about reality.
Jan, that reminds me of the true story of Manhattan elitist cocoon-dwelling liberal Pauline Kael, who said with amazement after Richard Nixon was elected, “How can that be? I don’t know anyone who voted for him!”
redbeard;
Funny, I had forgotten about Ms Kael but her statement truly epitomizes the disconnect.
Does anyone happen to know a ‘liberal’ in real-life who is looking for work?
I need help. I’m not sure what to have for dinner. My husband needs advice about his TV programming choices tomorrow – football or basketball? (Or should he watch PBS?) My daughter is feeling overwhelmed about her wardrobe decisions and my son is not sure which friend to invite over.
If we all work together, someday in the near future big brother will take care of us. Until that great day, I’m hoping I can find a democrat who would like to make a few extra dollars.
The internet has nullified the need for anything like the fairness doctrine. I can easily approach the free market of ideas via the internet and bookmark what I like. I don’t need the democrats to regulate the airwaves between my ears. I can bank my brain cells on the WSJ, Mother Jones, The Christian Science Monitor and a few dozen selected blogs. And occasionally I can hyperlink over to some Code Pink website and read what the neighbors are huffy about.
It seems obvious from tne information posted here that the Fairness Doctrine is anything but and is trying to be used as a way to stifle free speech. Who wants to do that? And why then do they even live in this country?
I think all thinkers are looking as to how their own mind works. They are also looking for opposing ideas to test themselves against. They are also looking for memorable logical facts that can be used as building blocks. Is the Fairness Doctrine needed for any of that? no.
Cigarettes are a national public health air wave problem. Maybe we could change the surgeon generals warning label to say. The Democratic Party warns you that this product is bad for your health. But if you are a Republican please keep smoking it.
Jd said: I think all thinkers are looking as to how their own mind works. They are also looking for opposing ideas to test themselves against. They are also looking for memorable logical facts that can be used as building blocks. Is the Fairness Doctrine needed for any of that? no.
JD, I hope you’re right.
As for the rest of you, well, thanks, it’s been interesting. I do think some of you simply cherry-picked my posts for statements to disagree with and then chuckle about how I wanted a big-brother style government to feed and dress me in the morning…. But many of you addressed my comments in a substantive fashion, and I appreciate that even though I disagree with your conclusions.
I’m interested in knowing why “Conservatives” (which is an impossibly nebulous label, I know, as is “Liberals”) come to the conclusions they do, so this was enlightening for me. Most of you seem to have a deep distrust of government, a desire to be as independent as possible, a near total faith in markets, and a belief that you can find all the relevant facts of any given matter for yourself (and can tell when Rush is talking nonsense).
I have a few questions for you: Are you socially conservative, fiscally conservative, or both? Are you libertarian and fiscally conservative?
Who are the members of the “liberal elites” or “secular liberals” who want to “save you from yourselves,” and who belongs to the “common man” and who does not?
For example, no state ever votes 100% Republican. Are Democratic voters in, say, Kansas, not “common men”? Or are all Democrats not Liberals? Even if they voted for Gore and/or Kerry? If not, which are Liberals and which are not?
Am I a “common man”? I grew up in a small town of 6,000 in Ohio, then moved to a fairly rural part of Virginia for high school (all schools attended were public), got a BA from the Univ. of Chicago, and now live in Tokyo working for a Japanese company as a translator. I make roughly 30-40 thousand a year and my family is not wealthy. I have a lot of student loans to pay off. So, how about it? Does voting Democratic disqualify me? Or having a BA? Or living outside the US?
The most common criticism of liberal ideas seems to be the idea that they want the government to do absolutely everything, and will tax the hell out of the population to do it. Government run amok for no real benefit, forcing everyone to do what only a fraction really want to and flushing personal independence and the economy down the drain. Do I have that right?
Well, here’s the basic viewpoint of a “Liberal”: The line between public and private is constantly shifting. Firefighting, for example, used to be done by private companies, but no one would think such to be a good idea today. In a modern economy, some things clearly benefit from an economy of scale and/or from standardized practices–health care, for example, or, say, energy. As individuals, we can pay private companies to do those things, or we can pay the government (through taxes or otherwise) to do them. In areas where the government is more efficient, the government should provide the service. The gains in efficiency, etc. gotten through competition in a free-market system could be largely preserved via incentives programs. To me, government intervention isn’t about hand-holding (though a reasonable safety net should be provided for–how else can people take the risks so necessary for successful capitalism?) but about efficiency and doing away with the uncomfortable double-standard of, say, providing customers with the best possible health care while being expected by shareholders to produce ever-higher profits. (I’m sure you’ll have a field day with this…go ahead, I’d like to see if there are significant holes in my thinking!)
Oh, one last thing: “Non-profit” does not mean “tax-funded.” My college newspaper was non-profit, and we funded ourselves through ad sales. It worked just like the New York Post (you thought I was going to say Times, didn’t you?
), only we put our profits into a savings account in case we had to operate at a loss later. Also, I have seen no point-by-point refutation of the advantages of a non-profit news media. “We disagree” is not what I’m looking for…
And Stacey (said: The entire purpose of the news media is to report the……..NEWS!): You can’t define an object as itself. There has to be a purpose to news, or it’s not, well, news! I left out “to inform” earlier, which is an important one, but I would say the other big one is “to point out problems.” I think the best way to solve a problem is certainly debatable, but “things that are problems” are mostly not (with exceptions, certainly, for things related to gays, abortion, etc.). Crime, war, political scandals, people lacking health care coverage, terrorism, human rights abuses, etc., are all pretty clearly Things That Need to Be Made Better in Some Manner.
I live in Tokyo so I can’t listen to Rush. I do read all the commentators on the Yahoo! News Editorials page, though, from Mona Charen and Anne Coulter and Mr. Bennett on the right to Ted Rall on the left, and find them all interesting in their own way. I read some things from the Christian Science Monitor and the WSJ as well as Slate, Salon, and the NYT.
I have more questions for you “conservatives” out there, if you want to play ball…
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” If, in order to say “X” government says I must allow someone else to say “Y,” there is now a condition up my ability to say “X.” As a result, my freedom of speech has been abridged.
Since we have no royalty in the US, it is necessary to have a political elite: the liberals. It is necessary, because without them, there would be no noblesse oblige.
The elitists in the power and wealth structure of our country realize that they alone, the gods of Mt. Olympus, are tasked with the burden of social responsibility. All others are part of the mobocracy which is dependent upon the wisdom, guidance and notice of the elite. Everyone beneath the elite is less fortunate and therefore a victim.
Oh, the foolish wars among the little people! Arguments about petty tripe, such as religion, sexuality, setting blame, bigotry and malice.
It is the duty (never a burden) of the elite to condescend to manage the affairs of the mob. The poor moths, individuals of the mobocracy, can find light in the aura of the elite. They can learn to be good by being able to flutter about in the light from above.
But there lurks within the mob those voices of dissent who play to the base instincts of the great unwashed. Egoists like Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity, O’Reilly, Bortz driving the lemmings to self destructive ends. And stupid people too. Reagan, Bush, Bush and any Republican president except Lincoln. And vile wolves like Wal-Mart, big oil, Halliburton, Bechtel, the pharmaceuticals, small business and big business and business in general.
The elitists must set the good example: save the earth from man made global warming, dialog with any dictator, equalize all differences, paint every landscape with multicultural ambiance, erase the stain of all Western religion and reduce it to funky superstition.
There is no evil, only a lack of enlightenment. A kiss from an elitist princess and every frog becomes a prince. (Note: Everything emanates from the feminine side.)
But most importantly, the necessary money to change the mean streets into a hillside where everyone sings in perfect harmony must come from the mobocracy itself.
Taxes should be fair. Fair, I tell you. (Of course, elitists largely exempt themselves from much taxation as a fair exchange for the burden of rectifying the foibles of mankind.)
The socialism of Europe is the perfect model: based upon confiscatory taxes and under-girded by a state from whom all blessings flow. What could possibly be better?
Who better to turn to for the basic terms of common decency, moral guidance and the perfect example of life itself than the elitists?
Clinton, Jackson, Pelosi, Kennedy, Leahy, Wrangle, Frank, Carter, Rodham, Steissand, Redford, Franken, Moore, Couric, Rather, Matthews, Kos, Rich, Dowd, Krugman, Pinch, WaPo, NYT, and so many more.
Of course, the mobocracy in its primitive state of nature often sees the elites not as angels with golden wings but as harpies, vultures and birds of prey.
Such is the thanks they get, the noble elite. Noblesse oblige is not for the weak of heart. Not when you have to force people to do things for their own good.
Bring on the Fairness Doctrine. We crave it, but are too dumb to know it.
Heliotrope, You have described most of the Liberals I know. It’s uncanny.
Thomas said:
“In a modern economy, some things clearly benefit from an economy of scale and/or from standardized practices–health care, for example, or, say, energy.”
One of the things which concerns me about government and its oft touted economy of scale is that so often it is really a euphemistic term for price controls wich results ultimately in fewer and fewer physicians, a lack of vaccines, less innovation, and so on, but it sure sounds good at first.
Government should do only those things which only government can do.
Helio;
After my husband stopped laughing with delight at your post, he noted; “Yep, he has described us well…I am certainly too dumb to know that I “need” the Fairness doctrine.”
This is a bit of a threadjack but yesterday, I was at my local HEB grocery store (in a “disadvantaged” area) and was talking to P, an elegant elderly black man who works at the deli counter. We were talking about life, kids, and taxes. P told me that he had retired from Luby’s when it went bankrupt and he thought that he had enough money to live a good life if he was frugal. Two of his three children had finished college and he thought that he was financially secure/adequate. To his shock, 43% of his savings were taken in taxes and penalties. His life savings were decimated and he says that he will need to work until he is 73, an optomistic estimate according to him.
Meanwhile, our city is exploring the best way to fund $512,000 downtown condominiums for those making under $40,000 so that downtown living is “not just for the rich” who can actally pay for it with their own money (Actually, it still will not be affordable to those making from $40,000-$100,000 because they will not be subsidized on the backs of other taxpayers).
You see, the “elitists” assume that they can spend P’s money better than he can. I can think of few notions that are more ugly and corrupted.
Jan said:“Yep, he has described us well…I am certainly too dumb to know that I “need†the Fairness doctrine.â€
An admission! Maybe there’s hope for you guys yet!
Yesterday, “P” told me a heartbreaking story.
“P” is an elegant elderly black man who works at the local HEB deli. Here is his story.. When he retired from Luby’s after it went bankrupt, he thought he had enough money to live a good life if he was frugal. When the government took 43% of his life’s savings in taxes and penalties, “P” was stunned. He says that he will now have to work until the age of 73 or so, if he is lucky. He tempered this with the following; “God has blessed me with a wonderful wife and three beautiful children, two of whom have completed college. I am a lucky man, but sometimes I am really just tired.”
You see, elitists took “P’s” hard earned money in the assumption that they could spend “P’s” money better than he could.
Thomas,
You are that rarest of the rare…someone with liberal views with a sense of humor and a willingness to actually have a dialogue with those on the other side of the spectrum without a continual spewing of ad hominems.
To Mike: You can say “x” without “y” all you want, just not in a forum with undue influence. Time and place restrictions are accepted for protests, why not TV and radio?
Jan,
Thanks, you’re a good sport too.
Incidentally, that’s a nice story about P, but without specifics it falls a bit flat. If he really wasn’t so well off, how did he owe so much in taxes? And why all at once? Also, unless P had private health insurance he’d be using Medicare, and receiving Social Security. And the country wisely spends 500 billion dollars a year on Defense (against terrorists and the Chinese, naturally), which I’m guessing you wouldn’t want to scale back. All that money has to come from somewhere, right? I’m in favor of taxing the hell out of the top 10% of earners instead of guys like P, like all the liberals I know… But nice story.
Thomas,
“P” apparently took his lump sum as income when Luby’s went bankrupt and did not have the wherewithall to shelter it. Our tax system is ludicrously complex and is a travesty in and of itself.
The top one percent of earners already pay over a third of all income taxes while earning only 14% of the income while the top 50% pay 96.5%. One of the dangers that I see is a system which enables voters to vote for bigger government while bearing little/no burden for the government which they impose. It is quite seductive to be able to vote for those who will give one the money of others.
Having lived in Ireland and the Middle East for decades, I never saw the advantage (much less the morality) of “taxing the hell out of the top 10% of earners.”
For one thing, when tax burdens become onerous, folks simply engage in tax avoidance. Since the Bush tax cuts for example, corporate revenues have sky rocketed. In Ireland, they dropped their corporate tax rates to 12.5% and their country has taken off like a rocket ship economically, yet, we persist in having the heaviest corporate tax burden in the developed world.
To me, it just doesn’t make fiscal sense and if I wanted to help the poor, the last thing I would do is “tax the hell” out of the most productive sector of society.
I spent decades in the Middle East starting businesses for Third World nationals (Nepal, Bombay, Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, and Kerala)with money from my own pocket. These folks seized the opportunity with extraordianry tenacity, optomism, and grace. Any one of them would have flourished in the US, given the opportunities that are available here. Yet, in my “disadvantaged neighborhood” I see an appalling number of folks that simply do not want to work, gift their kids with toys that I would have never dreamt of getting, and are simply abusing the system. They have been told they are disadvantaged for so long that they are seething with rage, but do NOTHING to help their situation.Living here has disabused me of many of my liberal attitudes.
When someone explains how to tax people into prosperity, I will rethink a few of my basic understandings.
Helio;
I wait, once again, with bated breath to find out the same thing. My bank account is generally in sync with my understanding, and so I await a different bottom line for both.
Thomas, nobody here said “Non-profit†does not mean “tax-funded.†(though they actually quite often ARE through grants etc.)
But you seem to think non-profit= good.
Not even CLOSE. Many do good things. Many do NOT.
Y’all;
Here is a comment on the dallasblog.com that I think you will find humorous/ irritating/appalling
http://www.dallasblog.com/dallas-blogs/2007/1/21/bush-to-use-state-of-the-union-to-unveil-health-care-tax-plan.html#comments.
Once again, we are stupid sheeple which require the remediation of the elitists among us….
here it is in all its shining glory:
“Which brings me to the most important action the Democrats must take: We must educate the public and bring them along to support single payer univeral health care, universally excellent public schools, and rebuilding our infrastructure for the 21st century. The Republicans have spent the last 30 years re-educating the public to think that liberals are evil, government can do nothing effectively, and that black is white. Our biggest job is to drive Republican propaganda from their heads and get the public to open their eyes and look at reality.”
A lovely example would be the various non-profits of William Jefferson and his siblings/cronies. Do you know who William Jefferson is? Jefferson of the 90k in his freezer?
He has, as a member of congress granted non-profits run by himself and or his siblings hundreds of thousands of dollars (actually probably much more than that- that’s just last year)..and has made deals with the state government and local government. All three – Fed, State and Local have made grants to his non-profits that have done NOTHING (with the exeption of paying NICE salaries (and expenses).
As I said to you before, what does being non-profit have to do with having good motives?
N O T H I N G
That’s just great, Jan.
If they want to ‘open eyes and look at reality’, I suggest they go look at England and Canada’s health care systems. It’s sickening.
Stacey;
I have experienced the “not so glorious” glory of both universal healthcare systems and it is not something I would wish on anyone.
As the Canadian Supreme court deemed; “Access to a waiting list is not akin to access to medical care.”
By the way, any of you that feel likie weighing in, here are a couple of links which could use some voices of sanity.
http://www.dallasblog.com/william-murchison-journal/2007/1/18/the-bush-library-and-its-foes.html#comments
http://www.dallasblog.com/dallas-blogs/2007/1/20/senator-brownback-announces-for-president.html#comments
Thomas, you want a point by point refutation of the ‘advantages’ of a non-profit news media.
So I went back to your earlier posts to see what you are talking about.
side item:
Your example of Rush lying is wrong.
Michael J. Fox ADMITTED to going off his meds prior to his appearance before congress in order to accentuate and exaggerate the symptoms of his disease. So Rush did NOT tell an untruth. In addition, you assert that no rebuttal was allowed- wrong again.
Okay, for the rebuttal of advantages/problems in free market news system:
you said A) won’t have time to do anything else, like work and spend time with their families, and B) cannot possibly be well-informed enough, educated enough, or have the time needed to find information relevant to every choice that needs to be made.
A doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t see how being a non-profit reduces the amount of time needed to gather and prepare news (though, again, democrats are not targeting news shows right now-they are targeting conservative talk radio). If you are trying to say having no competition means you don’t have to work as hard to produce a superior product, you may actually have a point here though.
B) you are telling us we are stupid again. I do NOT need you or the government to make my decisions for me.
Your next list:
A.) Put on the truth even when the truth is boring; B.) Stop pushing “news lite†stories about abducted blonde teens and celebrities simply because they get ratings; C) Have a better chance of avoiding conflicts of interest in reporting on corporations;
Why would being non-profit provide these advantages? Again, I don’t agree that they would exist. You say it wouldn’t be run on tax dollars. Your college paper, a non-profit, ran on advertising dollars. It may have been a non-profit, but that does not mean you didn’t need the money (advertising dollars) necessary to operate. It’s just a difference of scale and still beholden to corporate money in order to exist.
D) Discuss issues in a more thoughtful, rational way rather than having the “liberal-vs.-conservative†matches that entertain but often fail to enlighten.
How does being non-profit provide this? I can’t see how it has anything to do with it.
E) Reduce the benefit of being “first on the scene,†allowing them to gather all the facts before reporting;
Same thing. If you have to get your revenue from corporate advertising, you have to attract the customers…
F) reduce the “if it bleeds it leads†mentality that contributes to distorted views on risk and race.
What? Same thing, I guess.
It all comes down to the same thing. You think being non-profit confers noble motives. This is not backed up in the real world. Some non-profits are shining examples of noble motives and efforts leading to good things. Some non-profits are examples of noble motives leading to nothing. Some non-profits are money laundering outfits. Some non-profits are straight up nasty. Some are set up for nothing more than to steal from tax payers. Some are designed to rip off gullible people who give their own money.
Being non-profit, in and of itself, says exactly NOTHING about motive, viability or efficiency.
Jan posts a beauty: “Our biggest job is to drive Republican propaganda from their heads and get the public to open their eyes and look at reality.”
Don’t you love the sight of a liberal girding his loins?
Here I sit in Fortress Ignorance, arming myself up to my two teeth with my inbred family drooling at my side as I leaf through the Bible to get THE WORD OF THE LORD in anticipation of the the stream of limos full of enlightened libs come to drive Republican propaganda from my head.
Now there is one masterpiece of a run-on sentence. But, hey, look at the rube who wrote it!
Heliatroop, I is jus’ as dumm as yu, I gess. Mebbe we’uns need to bee put in one o’ them thar re-edumakashun kamps what them smart liboralls done set up fer us stoopid goobers.
Redbeard: No fair! I know for a fact that you went to pre-school.
What is more illuminating than the actual content of the words is the mere fact that someone would be so blatant about their “self-perceived” enlightened status and post such tripe. One would think that a truly enlightened person would have a better understanding of interpersonal communication instead of rubbing the rubes the wrong way.
Redbeard;
Did you really graduate from pre school?
I thought that you guys might enjoy another segment from the above poster’s treasure trove;
“The problem I have with the Republicans is that they seem to believe that all issues must be handled, not merely by conservatives, but by highly partisan conservatives in a highly parisan manner.”
“As a liberal, I do not demand that all issues be handled by liberals in a liberal manner. Some things require a liberal approach. Others require a conservative approach. It looks to me like the Democrats under Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are attempting to take a pragmatic approach.”
I thought that y’all would be gratified to know that Dean, Pelosi, and Reid have things well in hand with their bi-partisan pragmatic approach.
I not onlie done grajeated frum pre-skool, but I fineshed 4th graed an’ I can cifer gud.
Thomas reminds me of me. But the “me” from early college days, during my deluded head-in-fog liberal period. I eventually grew out of it.
Redbeard;
Must a been that 4th grade edjoocashun that got your deluded head out of the fog.
“The problem I have with the Republicans is that they seem to believe that all issues must be handled, not merely by conservatives, but by highly partisan conservatives in a highly parisan manner.â€
uhhh…my good man..if anyone wants to handle these manners while speaking with a lisp and stinking of cheese, ready to surrender at the drop of a hat….it is NOT the Republicans!
As far as the bit about the Democrats taking a pragmatic approach, this is actually probably true…after all, they havn’t established a dictatorship yet..we still get to choose what we buy..mostly…we can still go to church..and often, we can say what we want, right out in public!
So if you compare what they are currently trying to accomplish with their ultimate goals…it’s probably no exaggeration to say they have adopted a pragmatic approach!
Stacey;
You go, girl!
#169 was my lame attempt at a joke..parisan…
Redbeard,
Thomas is not all that bad of a fellow, comparatively speaking. He believes that there is *one* truth as compared to those wacko’s out there who believe in your truth, my truth, etc. etc. There is hope for that boy!
He also manages to construct entire paragraphs that contain no insults. He talks about ideas, he’s involved..if he keeps this up he’ll either emerge enlightened as to the true leftist agenda or he’ll join ‘em. He doesn’t really seem the type, so there is definite hope!:)
“It looks to me like the Democrats under Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are attempting to take a pragmatic approach.â€
There! So why overkill perfection with a lousy Fairness Doctrine?
I just knew we could work this all out in a bi-partisan way.
Now, as Sylvester the Cat would say: “Perchanth you could take your silly-ath Fairness Doctrine down the hall to thumone who really givth a th***t.”
“What the Fairness Doctrine does is to ensure that when political speech is broadcast, the American People are given the chance to hear the opposing point of view.”
Interesting how Fox News Channel has built their cable news network around this premise; it is constantly stressed by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity as they are always accussing other networks of not doing this.
So why are Conservatives so opposed to a little “fair & balanced” on the radio? Doesn’t Mr. O’reilly believe both sides of the story should always be presented as in “we report you decide”?
Why the major protest among Conservatives?
Maria, if anyone wants the liberal slant, all that is necessary is to open the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, or to watch CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC. I don’t hear conservatives calling for these liberal outlets to be silenced or balanced by legal force.
#179 Maria:
Welcome to the party.
Perhaps you will have the time to read posts 1 through 178, beginning with #1 and progressing sequentially.
The answer to your question lies therein: frequently.
So, if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, broadcasters will have to allow equal time for varying points of view. How many points of view are we talking about? Will it be up to broadcasters to run commentators from all political parties? This would include Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, the American Socialist Party, the American Communists, the American Nazi Party, etc. etc.
I know some of these parties are small, but the only way to be “fair” would be to include them all.
I also see a problem with folks who use Tivo to pre-record their viewing choices. Why, they could record a political commentary program and fast forward through the viewpoints they didn’t want to hear. I guess we will have to outlaw Tivo. After all, it is the only way we can be “fair”.
Honestly, I just can’t believe that there are people who want to give the government even more power than it already has.
I wonder if the folks who support bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would still support it if Air America’s ratings were sky high and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc. were having trouble finding an audience.
Please excuse the long post, but this really really struck me today:
For some time I have been an active participant on “liberal” websites and have been baffled by the constant accusation that conservatives are incredibly mean-spirited and vile. In the light of the obscenity, vitriol, and routine vicious ad hominem responses, that are endemic in the discourse of the left, I have been seeking an answer for the extraordinary dissonance.
This morning, a frequent “leftie” poster wrote the following response to a statement concerning Hillary: “[I will] be reasonable until Democrats, liberals, others I agree with, or I am attacked by those with whom I diagree, I will measure my words carefully. But, once attacked, I will respond in kind.When you start deleting the attacks by bad and evil conservatives, then I will moderate my tone as well.”
Here is the statement that so incensed her and “made her feel attacked.”
“May God help us, and the entire free world, if this person [Hillary] gets elected.This is a bad person, not fit to serve as president; and backed by evil interests that are not friendly to either America or freedom.”
Wilma responds;”I look forward to watching you delete my post while allowing thr [sic] rabid right free reign to attack Democrats and liberals. “As a 50 year old housewife, I’ve been attacked for being a Democrat by people like Byron, Relic, Bildo, Puken, Merton, Rove, Bush, and Cheney for half of my life.â€
Rove, Bush, and Cheney???????
Well, the point is that she is not that unusual and it hit me that she can no longer distinguish between a personal attack and a difference of opinion. It’s really rather extraordinary.
Tragically, her thinking has become so collectivized that she can no longer tell the difference between a negative comment about a political figure and an attack upon her person.
It’s almost as if they have merged into one.
Most of her posts are punctuated with “Everyone knows it” or “the polls say” or “the rest of the world is on my side” or “two thirds of Americans” or “the people have spoken and rejected your ideas”
She can no longer allow her ideas to stand on their own and frantically grasps for proof that her opinion is bolstered by numbers for it is only then when she can stand firm. After all, if one’s truth is no better than another’s, then it is probably better to have more folks truth buttressing one’s own.
At the end of the day, this is the last person on the planet that I want to give the power to make rules about how I live my life.
It’s frightening, isn’t it? And that ‘everybody knows’ thing drives me crazy.
Thomas is right about one thing. There are some people who absolutely cannot handle hearing opinions (or facts) that don’t reflect their own preconceived notions. His only mistake comes in assuming that this is even possible for a conservative. It would take an incredible amount of effort to isolate yourself from any type of ‘liberal’ dogma -media, mass communication, academia, etc. – all are dominated
I’ve also noticed that one must search far a wide to find a ‘liberal’ site that allows conservatives to comment..quite a few of them ban anyone not spouting the party line. I’d challenge anyone to attempt it on DailyKos, Huffington, etc.
Stacey;
Even the liberal sites that allow a conservative to post are so vile and rife with ad hominems that most conservatives who are actually seeking something which resembles a conversation, simply give up.
A very liberal professor told me quite sadly one day that the same dynamic occurs in college and he feels helpless to stem the tide. He said that conservative students come to his class very open, eager to learn and make friends, but are treated with such vitriol for their opinions that they clam up really quickly and shrink inside of themselves. He said that it would take enormous courage for most of them to handle the backlash if they merely admitted that they were pro-life, much less rejecting socialism or global warming. Then he looked at me sadly and said that he used to think of those who shared many of his viewpoints as tolerant and he wonders what happened.
Jan, you have a stronger constitution than I do, if you can actually participate at those leftist sites. I look at a few of the posts once in a while, just long enough to remind myself of the vile combination of intense hatred and startling ignorance that drives the leftist agenda.
Redbeard;
To tell you the truth, it has been disillusioning and quite often sucks the wind out of me. That’s one of the reasons that I am meandering on LaShawn’s superb site where most of the posters are very grounded. Even those few (with a couple of exceptions) that have a different perspective manage to keep it civil and actually engage in a dialogue.
Coupled with the delightful pieces that LaShawn writes, it is a part of my day that I look forward to, like a good cup of coffee and even better conversation.
“Coupled with the delightful pieces that LaShawn writes, it is a part of my day that I look forward to, like a good cup of coffee and even better conversation.”
Yep, I agree.
And it is nice to be able to disagree without having the discussion break down into a saloon brawl, as is the case elsewhere on the net. I’m not the most “couth” person on the planet (as my very patient wife can testify) but I do find rational discussion fulfilling.
So….. what kind of coffee?
Jan, I was in a seminar on art and one of the lecturers was a specialist on reading the hidden sexual symbols in Renaissance art.
This guy loved genitalia and never missed an opportunity to attach heavy duty four letter words in his findings as he drooled and lisped his way across a canvas.
I asked him if was possible to enjoy the art without seeing all the “hidden meaning” and if it was possible to deliver the lecture without resorting to sandbox potty language.
Being the only conservative in the seminar, I was quickly apprised of the fact that I was the last living specimen of Victorian repression.
I think that liberals have adopted abusive and crude language as a substitute for the Marquess of Queensbury Rules. (There is a German adage which roughly translated is: They try to pee with the tall dogs.)
#186 Redbeard
I heard you ain’t got no couth.
Helio and Redbird;
Speaking of a lack of couth, Brazoria Texas has just proposed legislation to criminalize the “n” word. Written into the statute are exemptions for those who utter the “uncouth” verbiage but whose recipient is not offended. In essence, the crime is totally subjective in its determination and will require the offended person to make the determination.
Naturally, this will be complicated when a person greets another with this salutation but a bystander overhears and is offended. As I stood in line for one hour at the post office today, I truly had to marvel at the notion that my tax dollars will be siphoned off into a merry go round of litigation over the offended (you can only imagine where this will go) instead of building roads, hospitals, and providing police and fireman.
And, people actually think that they can litigate the world into tolerance.
Wow. What a tangled web we weave when first we….. stop thinking rationally and start behaving like the loopy PC crowd.
Republicans took over the Congress in 1992, Liberal media, notwithstanding. With a multitude of Conservative talk shows on the air, Democrats won back Congress in 2006. People vote the way they do for a variety of reasons. This “Fairness Doctrine” is an unfair attempt to punish Conservatives in media for being popular.
Wouldn’t it be funny if some government bureaucrat forced Air America to air Conservative points of view and they started actually making money?
Thomas, when you say “Time and place restrictions are accepted for protests, why not TV and radio?” you’re talking about things beyond freedom of expression. A protest or demonstration often entails more than the thoughts being voiced: there may be issues of traffic, crowd control, public safety. Government has a legitimate role in addressing those external issues, not the content of the protest.
Comments on this entry are closed.