The Blade pushed for fairness doctrine - more governmental intrusion

I'm not at all surprised that the Blade came out in favor of revival of fairness doctrine as it applies to AM radio.

While most are getting sick of smoking ban talk, I souldn't help but notice the Blade is treating the fairness doctrine as they did the Ohio smoking ban. Read the next two paragraphs and notice that I only changed the tense and the topic and the words still accurately reflect the situation.

Everyone knows that the non-smoking majority always had the ability to make conscious decisions not to enter businesses like taverns that might opt to cater to smoking clientele. Yet, the Blade's position was to convince them that society was being victimized because smoking was occurring in these legal, legitimate businesses. The Blade convinced thousands of people who would never set foot in a tavern to support legislation to force private businesses to change the way they operate.

Everyone knows that the democratic non-conservative majority always had the ability to make conscious decisions not to listen to AM radio that might cater to conservative clientele. Yet, the Blade's position is to convince them that society is being victimized merely because conservative broadcasts are occurring at these legal, legitimate businesses. The Blade is trying to convince its readers who don't even listen to AM radio that they should support legislation to force these private businesses to change the way they operate.

Will the majority win this time? ? ? I hope not. It's not good for America. And, for the record, I still don’t wear my seatbelt (unless riding in a convertible). Damn government intrusion.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I had to chuckle:
"coming advent of Internet radio, streamed to homes and motor vehicles"

Internet radio is old school. While it can't be streamed into cars just yet, it is streamed into homes and anywhere else.

is because of HD and satellite radio.

HD channels are digital channels which cannot be broadcast across "normal" channels, it provides a medium to broadcast to limited-access receivers. But it adds to the access the listening public for alternate formats. And it can be broadcast into cars.

even satellite radio is a joke. "Commercial-free" my ass. Every show broadcast on XM and Sirius has an abundance of commercials. But there are over one hundred channels.

and NPR? Don't get me started with the "contributers" to that "public-radio" format.

But there are plenty of outlets for formats to broadcast both sides of an issue without compromising the core direction of the broadcast channel. You just got to know who is subsidizing the broadcast.

Has a post on the editorial. Of note:
The Toledo Blade has published an editorial with a laughable split personality. First the Blade assures its readers that fears about the possible return of the Fairness Doctrine is just some silly conspiracy theory being perpetrated by conservatives...and then the Blade itself calls for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

"I will force fairness by taking them over and putting in both sides of the debate, so you can decide what you want about the post. Unlike others on this site, I am not afraid of you seeing both sides of the debate."

Pink Slip

the person who said that was in response to a user who was abusing postings by putting titles that had no relation to the actual story as well as prompting opposite postings from other. Normally when abuse occurs that person speaks up to make sure that things stay in control on the site. I sure that person is glad the Federal government is not coming here and forcing someone to do something.

Might not be mainstream yet, but its here. I can listen to WXRT/Chicago using my iPhone and the aux port on my car radio. There are a number of apps that give iPhone users access to hundreds of stations. Some over the air, some internet. It's pretty darn amazing.

I'll support the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine when I can listen to Rush Limbaugh on NPR because of the fairness doctrine.

The Blah-duh is becoming irrelevant. They can tilt at windmills all they want, but they are simply playing to their liberal base, just as 'SPD plays to their conservative base. I don't miss getting the Blade since I cancelled it last October.

The Achilles' heel of the leftists' argument(s) for reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" or whatever variation that it might become, is(are) that these people presuppose that there are just two sides of an argument.

It's not that at all. There are as many sides to a position as there are individuals. It's inevitable that someone's viewpoint will be left out. Would that be fair?

So, the logical conclusion of what the leftists will effectively do is to silence ALL viewpoints on the radio. Would that be fair?

The reason is because it would be impossible to allow hundreds, thousands, or millions of viewpoints to be heard (let alone understood and restated accurately) due to the time constraints of radio.

In the name of "fairness", the left seeks to shut down the capitalistic, free-market driven, talk-radio enterprise only because they perceive it to interfere with their agenda. Is that fair? Is it Constitutional?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.