Ironic... isn't it???

ib1yysguy said:
An editorial is not an opinion show, and it's not regulated by the FCC. The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with newspapers.
Click to expand...

the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with airwaves anymore either....

it is stupid to whine about talk shows when he obviously has another outlet to voice his opinion on a national stage, just like talk shows....why not go on air america?

the guy is a big whiner
 
Annie said:
That may be, but is an editorial and both sides do not have to be presented. Perhaps a lesson for him too?
Click to expand...

Which is precisely the point... op-ed shows/articles are not meant to be unbiased. What he proposes is applying the archaic 'fairness' (term used very loosely) doctrine to op-ed shows. When there was a scarcity among news channels (when it was only the big 3 plus PBS) I can see the desire to protect the public to a degree as the fear was that the public may not have access to viewpoints across the spectrum of political views.

But now that we have hundreds of channels available to the bulk of the public, there is no need to impose the Fairness doctrine.... ESPECIALLY on op-ed shows.
 
Superfreak said:
Which is precisely the point... op-ed shows/articles are not meant to be unbiased. What he proposes is applying the archaic 'fairness' (term used very loosely) doctrine to op-ed shows. When there was a scarcity among news channels (when it was only the big 3 plus PBS) I can see the desire to protect the public to a degree as the fear was that the public may not have access to viewpoints across the spectrum of political views.

But now that we have hundreds of channels available to the bulk of the public, there is no need to impose the Fairness doctrine.... ESPECIALLY on op-ed shows.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm the last one to attack for arguing for fairness doctrine. I've been arguing against for at least 21/2 years.
 
Superfreak said:
Which is precisely the point... op-ed shows/articles are not meant to be unbiased. What he proposes is applying the archaic 'fairness' (term used very loosely) doctrine to op-ed shows. When there was a scarcity among news channels (when it was only the big 3 plus PBS) I can see the desire to protect the public to a degree as the fear was that the public may not have access to viewpoints across the spectrum of political views.

But now that we have hundreds of channels available to the bulk of the public, there is no need to impose the Fairness doctrine.... ESPECIALLY on op-ed shows.
Click to expand...
I think you are preaching to the choir on this post, SF...
 
What gets me about the entire "fairness doctrine" thing is the calim about "public airwaves". What a fucking crock! It's the electromagnetic spectrum, not air, in the first place. In the second place, the EM spectrum exists whether we do or not. No one, not even John Q. Public, can "own" the EM spectrum. So it isn't "public" as the claim maintains. The regulation of who can use which frequency band of the EM spectrum and how much power can be used was put in place to prevent competing stations from (deliberately?) interfering with and/or talking over each others' broadcasts. These regulations do NOT make the EM spectrum "belong" to the "public". The whole "public airwaves" mantra was created as an excuse for more government power and further regulations other than just making sure broadcast companies stayed in their own frequency band.
 
Thomas Jefferson, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
 
I dont think Jefferson would approve of a media in which corporations can buy all that agitation while the people get burried with the corps money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top