Another article on the Fairness Doctrine? Is this area trying to be ground zero for the debate? All one has to ask is if this is such a threat, then how did the Democrats take power? It makes no sense, but look at those proposing it and maybe you can understand why. There is another article in the Blade today about the issue and one wonders why this is the case, especially since the article admits it most likely won't get any attention. Especially interesting given the leader of the Democrats in the Ohio Senate can't find campaign checks and that Marcy Kaptur seems to be wrapped up in a Noe like scandal.
An interesting fact is when it originally derived in 1949. There was really two types of media at the time-newspaper and radio. It was essential and still is that the government control the broadcasting frequency because having lived in a country for a while where radio stations could broadcast on any frequency, it is quite depressing when you go up and down the whole dial and hear only one channel. With cable, satellite, the Internet, cell phones, this law is a dinosaur and was appropriately tossed out by Reagan in the 80s. In addition there are a ton of channels on the dial now (including HD) and any one of them can switch over to a different type of programming at any time.
====
Read more:
A regular parade of Democratic politicians has expressed interest in reviving the rule that - until it was abolished by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 - forced stations to toe an ideologically neutral line.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090215/NEWS09/90...
You support the Fairness Doctrine, don't you Chris? You've said that adding content is a good thing.
Pink Slip
I don't recall saying that about radio stations. I recall it saying let people choose what they do and do not want to do. Are you against free choice?
But you instituted your own fairness doctrine. You said you were just adding content. What's the dif?
Pink Slip
there is a freedom of choice. I will work to make this site successful for keeping abuse in check and I am sure everyone does what is in their best interest, including radio stations. And for you to try to compare an Internet site with radio is also comparing apple to oranges.
The funny thing is that the opposite side is invited to the radio, but because they lack spine they don't show up. Ben Konop has been invited but never goes on then whines about a "Fairness". He then advocates for government to enforce it. What not a perfect example of the people who are pushing the issue.
So basically Pink Slip is ignoring that the ruling is a dinosaur and also saying that the people invested don't have a choice on how to do what they want to do to be successful. Heck WCWA allowed Troy Neff to purchase time. You would think that if there was a desire to get liberal programming that you would try to raise some money and buy time on radio or even TV to broadcast what you want to say, but that is hard.
"And for you to try to compare an Internet site with radio is also comparing apple to oranges."
But YOU were the one who compared radio to the internet
"With cable, satellite, the Internet, cell phones, this law is a dinosaur and was appropriately tossed out by Reagan in the 80s"
For the record, I am firmly against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. We saw how popular it was on this site, when Chris enforced it.
Since the Republicans take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh, and Limbaugh is LESS popular than Jeremiah Wright--it gives the Democrats an advantage to protect the status quo. Conservative radio isn't hurting America, it's hurting the Republicans.
Pink Slip
I don't see how saying there are other options to get information/news means that I am comparing it, but I guess it is essential for you to try to make this point in order to avoid the choice issue.
Yes, the 2nd most popular post on the site is one where I did a fairness doctrine (according to you):
http://swampbubbles.com/five-dead-1-280-michael-gagnon-adrian-michigan-r...
and 5th
http://swampbubbles.com/Karyn-McConnell-Hancock-Saga-Continues
So yes, it does appear to be very popular. Thanks for noticing.
For someone who is firmly against it:
http://swampbubbles.com/20090208/democrat-led-toledo-talk-radio-still-le...
http://swampbubbles.com/20081211/glenn-beck-talks-about-fairness-doctrin...
http://swampbubbles.com/bubble/pelosi-supports-fairness-doctrine#comment...
http://swampbubbles.com/bubble/pelosi-supports-fairness-doctrine#comment...
Could have surprised me. At any point in the last 7 months you could have said that, but you did not.
The two posts you referenced to back up your case aren't the type I'm referring to. Those were posts that were combined with others that had similar content. I'm referring to the post you decided was too one-sided, and you specifically said you were enforcing fairness. (you know this, you're just purposely being obtuse) How is this any different than your criticisms of the Fairness Doctrine?
And I don't think you'll find me saying that I support a return to the Fairness Doctrine. I do however support laws that are currently on the books--like the FCC public interest law
Pink Slip
in your eyes you think that, but the fact is whenever it is done, it is done for the same purpose. In your selfish mind, you think it is done for another reason because it was your post, but they are all the same. Taking posts and adding information, either the same or opposite has been done to improve the ones that need improved, so for the 2 out of 2400 posts last year you say had opposite information added, they became better. You also know what you were doing back then, so you can stop acting like you were a victim.
Yet, how all of this translates into the fairness doctrine and making the government step on people to do things on the radio is beyond me. You apparently keep refusing to acknowledge that everyone has a right to do what they see fit in the best interest. I have my ideas and radio program managers have their ideas too, and government has no right to tell me or them what to do. Now what is wrong with this?
Regardless, there are many laws that were out of date. Lincoln happened to got rid of one of the major ones.
I am sure that anyone who reads your other comments will get what your position is on the doctrine and why only after 7 months you now say you are against it.
but the fact is whenever it is done, it is done for the same purpose
That's hilarious. So you added content to the Gagnon/Hancock posts to make them more fair? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You criticize the Fairness Doctrine to no end...but you are guilty of doing the same thing on this site.
Pink Slip
need to try harder to make a point. Free choice and big government forcing businesses to devote significant time to cover a topic they (government) thinks is fair. Not exactly the same situation. Nice try though.
Besides you recently wondered what the big deal about 1% (.01) of the pork in the bailout. Well what problem do you have with .0008% of the posts? Heck that is nowhere close to 1%. Can't be a big deal right?
balanced. Liberals have the newspapers and television. Conservatives have the radio. Anyone who doesn't realize by now that Obama and the democrats are control hungry communists are just plain foolish.
'Anyone who doesn't realize by now that Obama and the democrats are control hungry communists are just plain foolish'.
See, when moronic conservatives want to yak all day on the radio with this type of drivel, I say let 'em. Keep the party going. It's worked out well the last two election cycles.
Adding content to the air waves is great if it can be self-supporting! but the fairness doctrine is not about being fair, it is about eliminating opposition opinions. The problem, as I see it, is that left-leaning people don't like the fact that there is righ-leaning opinion available for anyone to hear at almost any time. The simple solution for the Left-leaning is to not listen. Let the people who agree with and/or enjoy the right-leaning opinions listen. That is what is fair.
Suppose we are neighbors and I hate American Idol. Do I have the right to come into yours or anyones' house and prevent them from watching the show? no I do not. I have the right to not watch it in my house. I have the right to not go to someone else's house if the show is one, but I do not have any right to prevent others from watching it.
it is the same for opinions on radio. Just because a left-leaning person does not like right-leaning opinions they do not have a right to prevent or limit people who do like or appreciate those opinions.
and the point was also made, if the WSPD opinions are so bad, how do we have Carty elected for three terms, Jack Ford for one, all the democrats and RINOS on council?
In the United States we have the right of free speech as protected in the First Amendment. There is no right to not be offended, nor is there a right to control other people's right to listen to opposition opinion.
so adding content to a station would be good. However, experience has shown that left-leaning opinions do not draw ratings therefore they do not draw advertisers and therefore they don't make money. that is the bottome line in any commercial venture, does it or will it make money. fair and balanced has very little to do with it.
Back to the "fairness" of the Blade article by Tom Troy:
Toledo is typical of many large American cities in that its largest AM station, WSPD-AM 1370, provides conservative content all day long both with syndicated hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin and local talkers Fred LeFebvre, Brian Wilson, and Maggie Thurber.
So what's the big problem here? Is the problem that it's conservative or that it's on all day long?
I don't hear any of these leftist liberals complaining about ESPN which provides sports content all day long. They don't complain about the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Science Channel, MTV, or CSPAN etc. which ironically is programming that runs on Buckeye Cable System owned and operated by the same people that own the Blade--Block Communications, Inc. who are complaining about "conservative talk radio being on all day long."
They only complain about something they aren't able to respond to on an intellectual basis using facts, reason.and argumentation. So leftists resort to force.
"Toledo is typical of many large American cities in that its largest AM station, WSPD-AM 1370, provides conservative content all day long "
The largest AM station happens to provide conservative content. And Dems see the numbers of people listening to "conservative content all day long " and want to squelsh the growing voice of the opposition. It is no considence that the station that provides "conservative content all day long" is also the largest AM station.
If Democrats were truly interested in "fairness", they would include all media outlets in the Fairness Doctrine.
After all, it is equally if not more important that the print media and TV also present equal time.
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
I really wish progressive radio would work, but it won’t.
In the end it’s conservatives who need their fears and their ideas reinforced to them over and over. It’s an inherent weakness inside of them.
Conservatives are like scared children. They truly believe that their own marriages are in jeopardy because two men can get married. They think their daughters will become sluts if they get inoculated for certain STDs. Wikipedia was too liberal and full of “facts and stuff”, they had to go out and create their own equivalent, less they hear or see something that doesn’t agree with them.
That’s the real reason that newspapers and TV are “liberals”. They might actually report or write something that challenges their neat little believe system they’ve cocooned themselves in. Anything/everything that doesn’t fit into the conservative bubble is deemed “liberal”.
Liberals simply don’t need this.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/02/15/aspects-of-the-fairness-doctrine-poi...
"I really wish progressive radio would work, but it won’t. "
so the answer is then of course, to get rid of conservative talk radio. Is that what you advocate?
When my students make a claim, I counter with the question WHY? and I expect and push for answers.
You can't convince an audience that your ideas are valid--note, I did not say correct-- if you can't demonstrate why you feel as you do.
I want to know WHY we need a Fairness Doctrine?
If the answer is, "to be fair" to all sides, I do not see the validity. I understand the equal time provision, and that is a fairness issue. Have the cards been stacked against the liberal "side" of things. No. So what is unfair? That liberals don't support AirAmerica in the same way that conservatives support the EIB Network?
That's pissing and moaning over a kid on the other side of the block selling more lemonade at his stand than I do because he has more traffic.
It seems to me that Congress has much more important things to do than worry about radio, unless they really see it as a threat. I do not know why they would...it hasn't been able to rally the masses against anything. The masses are obviously not listening to the radio!
Dems, libs and everyone in between should be crying foul. Our nation's leaders should be rolling up their sleeves and working on other things right now.