Do you believe the Fairness Doctorine is really fair?

Only a liberal would concoct something so ridiculous.

 

First of all, it is no longer in force, so the point is moot.

But secondarily, it didn't trample free speech. You can say anything you want. How does it trample free speech by not giving you a broadcast platform to do so? The airwaves belong to everyone, not to the radio station. In your hypothetical, you are borrowing the radio frequency that belongs to all. Therefore it is not yours to do with as you please. You are subject to FCC regulations to insure you use that public asset in the public interest. We are not obligated to let you use that public asset as your personal soapbox. This is not a free speech issue at all, despite how you framed it. Are the FCC regs against porn being broadcast also a denial of free speech? Using your logic, it is.

 

Nothing now prevents both sides from being discussed. Hannity and Rush routinely have people who discuss liberal viewpoints. A radio station is permitted to have on whoever they want.

But radio and media is a business, not a service. Radio stations exist to make money. If I were an investor in a radio station, I would totally ticked off if I found out they gave up the opportunity to make money because of this.

If liberals want to be on the radio, they need to have something to say and say it in a manner that people want to listen to.

Remember, there is a reason Rush is huge. It is because people listen to him voluntarily. There is a reason Ed Schultz isn't. Because people voluntarily don't listen to him. If you took Rush off the air and put Ed Schultz or whoever else in his place, the audience will likely not remain the same. They people will turn it off. It's called ratings.

 

First of all, there is no one on the left currently calling for its reinstatement. :laugh:

Read what I wrote about public assets above. It answers this question. We all own the radio spectrum. Therefore we get to make the rules via our government, as to how those assets are to be used. Your original assertion that it tramples free speech is false, as I have already shown.

That was never part of the Fairness Doctrine. It simply required balanced viewpoints, since the airwaves are public property. Much like this board's owners get to make the rules about what is posted here. Is that also trampling your freedom of speech? No, since no one is obligated to give you a soapbox. You can always go stand in the public square and espouse any opinion you hold.

I do remember when the station gave editorials, they always had to invite dissenting opinions the opportunity to respond. I really enjoyed the various viewpoints you would hear. Why are righties so afraid of another opinion being heard? Are your tenets not strong enough to hold up in the light of the free marketplace of ideas?

As for liberal talk shows, tell that to Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Alan Colmes, Jay Marvin, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, and many others.

 

If I owned a radio station, I should be allowed to have on any programming I want and not have on any programming I don't want (as long as it doesn't violate laws of decency). The government shouldn't be allowed to tell any business what they can and can't sell.

I can see where this is going. The government is going to pass a law that says that steakhouses can only serve pork, not beef. They're real good at selling pork!

 

No, because your grill isn't public property. The radio spectrum IS. Now to hold up, your analogy would require that the grill in the kitchen is owned by the public, who could then set up rules on how you use it.

 

The equipment used to produce and transmit the programs that air on the public airways is private equipment.

 

That is true, but they transmit using the public airwaves. If you don't believe me, set up a transmitter at your house and begin broadcasting. See how long it is before the FCC pays you a little visit, and you end up in big hot water. "But officer, I own this transmitter!"

 

A twisted mind's thinking capabilities revealed:

Censorship of child pornographers on the internet=wrong
Censorship of conservative talk radio=ok

 

You poor thing. It is your mind that appears to be having trouble grasping simple concepts. No one is talking about censorship. This is not a free speech issue. Why is that so hard for you?

Again, I ask, is it trampling your free speech to have the BB restrict topics on their property? Why is this different than the public owners of the airwaves having regs about how they are used? No one seems to be able to answer that. :tongue3:

EDITED TO ADD: Strawman alert. Your accusation that I said child porn is okay is a flat out lie. Apologize or show where I said such a thing. Child porn is NEVER ok. You have been reported.

 

Again, the thinking of a twisted mind. I rest my case.

 

The BB is a private place. The airwaves are not. Furthermore, the public owners are not making regs about how they are used in this case. It is a small group.

Furthermore, the "owners" (as you put it) are making decisions by who they listen to. They are telling us what they want done with the airwaves.

Think about why a station changes from rock to country. It is because the owners think that is what the audience wants. It seems like every couple of years a station is changing formats in an effort attract listeners.

Should the FCC limit the number of country stations in a market to be fair to the pop audience? Should they mandate that a country station must devote time to classical music?

Of course not. You would say that is silly. And rightly so. But you advocate doing exactly that with the fairness doctrine. It attempts to force stations to play things that they don't want to, and that will ultimately cost them profits, which mean jobs go out the window. Just last week in Detroit, one of the two major sports stations fired all local hosts and went to nationally syndicated broadcasting. Why? Money ...

It's all about the dollars. Why should stations be forced to put on programs that will lose them money and cost people jobs?

When WJR in Detroit picked up Rush a number of years ago (after Rush was dumped from another station that changed to sports radio), noted liberal Mitch Albom completely understood. It was about dollars and audiences.

Why don't you understand that?

Guess not, eh?

 

So you cannot answer my question? All you can do is rest with no arguments to support your ridiculous statements? Sorry counselor, you have failed to provide evidence. Either engage with support for your assertions or disengage.

 

A small group that have the legal authority to act on the owners behalf.

The Fairness Doctrine is not the current law, so this is all moot. But if the public wants to have rules about how to let all viewpoints be heard on a limited public resource, that is its right.

Tangential diversion...music formats are not political speech. However, the FCC DID used to make such decisions. I was involved in some situations where new owners had to get FCC approval for a format change. I don't think they do that now.

Strawmen abound. No one says Rush can't have a show. You still fail to demonstrate why this is being framed as a free speech issue. Why do you not understand that regulation helps insure all sides of an argument gain access to a publicly-owned, finite resource? This again, is not current law. But this is not a free speech issue at all. The radio station owner doesn't own the airwaves. Today, it is usually not even a small local owner, but rather corporations like Clear Channel. Radio has gone syndicated with deregulation, so we end up with the same garbage coast to coast, rather than local issues being discussed. But that is a different topic.

You are right about one thing...it's all about the $$. Here in Denver, Clear Channel owns the Air America outlet AND the conservative stations. Talking from both sides of their mouth. There is the problem...group ownership of up to 8 stations in one market...too much control in one corporate set of hands. IF CC decided to make 8 stations of Rush, or of Ed Schultz, is this good for America? This is even more why we need to revive the Fairness Doctrine in some form.

SO again, what are you righties so afraid of? Why do you fear another opinion being heard? Is your side's arguments so weak that they can't stand up to other views being aired?

 

Touche!

Well guys, carry on. I have to go to work.