Full Version: Media Muzzled?
In Thurston County, Washington, (my last county of residence incidentally), a judge has ordered a Seattle based talk radio station to report the monetary value of two talk show hosts' comments promoting rollback Initiative 912 (opposing a proposed 9.5-cent-per-gallon increase).
Link
My belief is that this violates the Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 5, which states: Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
Strangely, the party that states fundamental support for free speech is applauding the judges decision.
Link
The state republican party chair Chris Vance is quoted as saying: "Very frankly, I can't think of another issue about which Republicans disagree more," he said. "It splits our coalition.
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine?
Will this ruling, though local, have dire consequences for any political speech in the media by either side of the political spectrum?
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law?
QUOTE
The critics' lawyers said the KVI ruling would have a chilling effect on political commentary and editorials in the media. They said an appeal is possible.
KVI and Fisher Broadcasting executives were aghast at the ruling. They said talk show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur were doing only what political commentators and newspaper editorial pages do across America - discussing issues and recommending action.
KVI and Fisher Broadcasting executives were aghast at the ruling. They said talk show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur were doing only what political commentators and newspaper editorial pages do across America - discussing issues and recommending action.
Link
My belief is that this violates the Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 5, which states: Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
Strangely, the party that states fundamental support for free speech is applauding the judges decision.
QUOTE
They are attempting to reverse legislative process and change public policy. That's way outside the boundaries of "discussing issues" and "recommending action"
Link
The state republican party chair Chris Vance is quoted as saying: "Very frankly, I can't think of another issue about which Republicans disagree more," he said. "It splits our coalition.
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine?
Will this ruling, though local, have dire consequences for any political speech in the media by either side of the political spectrum?
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law?
OK, I know this story was a local issue, but I had thought that the broader implications would be as scary to others as it is to me.
The Washington State campaign finance laws are remarkably similar to the McCain-Feingold law passed in congress. In effect, a judge has ordered political observers not to speak of political issues on the air.
My prediction is that the left will use this ruling to do one of two things: either cite the ruling just prior to the 2006/08 election to stifle talk radio; or to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine if or when they regain one or both houses or the presidency.
Air America is not exactly carrying the field as they had hoped, and realizing that talk radio is a powerful force in expressing opinion and ideas, it would be too tempting a target to pass up.
I don't know the political affiliation of Judge Wickam, but his experience as a labor law attorney and his appointment by a democratic governor may provide some insight, but that's still speculation.
Bio
The philosophical and theoretical questions this ruling raises is astounding, and in my opinion is tantamunt to an assault on free speech.
The Washington State campaign finance laws are remarkably similar to the McCain-Feingold law passed in congress. In effect, a judge has ordered political observers not to speak of political issues on the air.
My prediction is that the left will use this ruling to do one of two things: either cite the ruling just prior to the 2006/08 election to stifle talk radio; or to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine if or when they regain one or both houses or the presidency.
Air America is not exactly carrying the field as they had hoped, and realizing that talk radio is a powerful force in expressing opinion and ideas, it would be too tempting a target to pass up.
I don't know the political affiliation of Judge Wickam, but his experience as a labor law attorney and his appointment by a democratic governor may provide some insight, but that's still speculation.
Bio
The philosophical and theoretical questions this ruling raises is astounding, and in my opinion is tantamunt to an assault on free speech.
The state of Washington has less respect for the rule of law and more interest in maintaining the status quo of Democratic power. Censuring political speech should frighten every man woman and child who has any hope of maintaining a nation for the people and by the people. This is the sort of thing you would expect in Iran, not the USA. Unfortunately, our love for big government leads us to these sorts of problems.
My respect for Washington state's government was already soured after last November's gubernatorial election when it took three vote counts before the Democrats finally came up with the results they needed. Suspicious, yes. Even Washingtonians think the Republican candidate actually won. And in spite of possible election fraud in liberal King county (where over 1,200 more votes were cast than there were voters), the courts refused to address these issues and handed the governorship to the Democrat. Here's an informative editorial on the matter from the Wall Street Journal.
Good luck to those of you up in Washington who still care about liberty and democracy.
My respect for Washington state's government was already soured after last November's gubernatorial election when it took three vote counts before the Democrats finally came up with the results they needed. Suspicious, yes. Even Washingtonians think the Republican candidate actually won. And in spite of possible election fraud in liberal King county (where over 1,200 more votes were cast than there were voters), the courts refused to address these issues and handed the governorship to the Democrat. Here's an informative editorial on the matter from the Wall Street Journal.
Good luck to those of you up in Washington who still care about liberty and democracy.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 7 2005, 08:20 AM)
OK, I know this story was a local issue, but I had thought that the broader implications would be as scary to others as it is to me.
The Washington State campaign finance laws are remarkably similar to the McCain-Feingold law passed in congress. In effect, a judge has ordered political observers not to speak of political issues on the air.
My prediction is that the left will use this ruling to do one of two things: either cite the ruling just prior to the 2006/08 election to stifle talk radio; or to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine if or when they regain one or both houses or the presidency.
Air America is not exactly carrying the field as they had hoped, and realizing that talk radio is a powerful force in expressing opinion and ideas, it would be too tempting a target to pass up.
I don't know the political affiliation of Judge Wickam, but his experience as a labor law attorney and his appointment by a democratic governor may provide some insight, but that's still speculation.
Bio
The philosophical and theoretical questions this ruling raises is astounding, and in my opinion is tantamunt to an assault on free speech.
The Washington State campaign finance laws are remarkably similar to the McCain-Feingold law passed in congress. In effect, a judge has ordered political observers not to speak of political issues on the air.
My prediction is that the left will use this ruling to do one of two things: either cite the ruling just prior to the 2006/08 election to stifle talk radio; or to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine if or when they regain one or both houses or the presidency.
Air America is not exactly carrying the field as they had hoped, and realizing that talk radio is a powerful force in expressing opinion and ideas, it would be too tempting a target to pass up.
I don't know the political affiliation of Judge Wickam, but his experience as a labor law attorney and his appointment by a democratic governor may provide some insight, but that's still speculation.
Bio
The philosophical and theoretical questions this ruling raises is astounding, and in my opinion is tantamunt to an assault on free speech.
I agree with you posing this one, it is a very important issue. Obviously I am new to this forum so can not answer why there were no takers to your question, other than people are busy… it is summer…
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine? Yes it should be I will explain below
Will this ruling, though local, have dire consequences for any political speech in the media by either side of the political spectrum? I would hope it does, hope it is a start that catches on.
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law? Could be an extension of it, again good point.
I noticed that the RNC gave a value of 10k a piece to the free commentary. From what I have learned in the private sector editorial is worth many times what the normal published rate is for a normal ad. By factors of 3-7 times. I have had products featured in editorial in my career and that is what a friend of mine who sells ad space informed me of. So it would be interesting to see how the RNC came up with their figures.
From my standpoint the ownership of the media is the same as Iraq or any other country completely owning the media when it is owned basically by one party. As we know the media is virtually owned by one party in the USA so how is it any different than Iran or SA?
Are the advertisements by the Energy industry that were before the election political in nature when they basically state “ hi I am dr environment and I have been doing this for 20 years so that we can drive our cars the way we want…bla bla bla” or the pharmaceutical companies, ‘hi I am Suzie savior and I am working on a way to suck all the money out of your livelihood,,, whoops, meant I am working to save my sister she has death disease 2, that will kill her if I do not find a cure, this research takes soooooo many years”
Now are those political or what…. Notice they stopped right after the election. Does it make you switch from tiger gas to rock gas company? NO.. how about the drug one does it make you want to by xyzs aspirin now? No. These were political propaganda and just the tip of the melting iceberg. These ads alone were to the tune of 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars.
So does the media control(owning it) and advertising control have an effect on voting? See the other thread “is the media biased” where I put my three cents into it.
So my conclusion is we need to do something our media is rated number 22 for freedom and that does not even include the advertising buys I noted above. Or the example you cited in Washington of political commentary on the broadcast media is another straw that is breaking the camels back.
I have to ask- because I am not getting enough info here- is this following on the equal time issue of broadcasting? For instance, we have a radio personality here that wants to run for mayor- he can keep his job, as long as he does not political commentary on the mayors race or issues related to the mayors race- OR the radio station has to provide EQUAL time to his opponents- ALL his opponents- that is heap big air time my friend!
Howard Stern dropped out of a political race over the same issue-
Is this related to that issue?
If the commentary is on a specific issue, and it is sponsored by the station via having full time radio commentary- are they not allowing equal time then? If that is the reason- that is part of the licensing agreement for the privilege of the bandwidth-
Owning bandwidth is a privilege remember- saying what you want with your own breath is free speech- and I mean free, as it doesn't cost anything LOL
Bandwidth is licensed by the goverment and there are alot of conditions attached to that license.
Howard Stern dropped out of a political race over the same issue-
Is this related to that issue?
If the commentary is on a specific issue, and it is sponsored by the station via having full time radio commentary- are they not allowing equal time then? If that is the reason- that is part of the licensing agreement for the privilege of the bandwidth-
Owning bandwidth is a privilege remember- saying what you want with your own breath is free speech- and I mean free, as it doesn't cost anything LOL
Bandwidth is licensed by the goverment and there are alot of conditions attached to that license.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 6 2005, 11:01 PM)
In Thurston County, Washington, (my last county of residence incidentally), a judge has ordered a Seattle based talk radio station to report the monetary value of two talk show hosts' comments promoting rollback Initiative 912 (opposing a proposed 9.5-cent-per-gallon increase).
Link
My belief is that this violates the Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 5, which states: Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
Strangely, the party that states fundamental support for free speech is applauding the judges decision.
Link
The state republican party chair Chris Vance is quoted as saying: "Very frankly, I can't think of another issue about which Republicans disagree more," he said. "It splits our coalition.
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine?
Will this ruling, though local, have dire consequences for any political speech in the media by either side of the political spectrum?
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law?
QUOTE
The critics' lawyers said the KVI ruling would have a chilling effect on political commentary and editorials in the media. They said an appeal is possible.
KVI and Fisher Broadcasting executives were aghast at the ruling. They said talk show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur were doing only what political commentators and newspaper editorial pages do across America - discussing issues and recommending action.
KVI and Fisher Broadcasting executives were aghast at the ruling. They said talk show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur were doing only what political commentators and newspaper editorial pages do across America - discussing issues and recommending action.
Link
My belief is that this violates the Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 5, which states: Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
Strangely, the party that states fundamental support for free speech is applauding the judges decision.
QUOTE
They are attempting to reverse legislative process and change public policy. That's way outside the boundaries of "discussing issues" and "recommending action"
Link
The state republican party chair Chris Vance is quoted as saying: "Very frankly, I can't think of another issue about which Republicans disagree more," he said. "It splits our coalition.
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine?
Will this ruling, though local, have dire consequences for any political speech in the media by either side of the political spectrum?
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law?
*sorry to quote the whole post - browser playing up*
It seems to me that there is nothing inconsistent with the Federal or State constitutions in this ruling. If I read you right, the judge is not saying "you can't support I-912 on air". He (or she) is saying "if you support I-912 on air, you have to describe the effect of doing so on state finances".
To this end, the ruling is complying with the constitutional clause you quoted, specifically the phrase "being responsible for the abuse of that right".
If other posters have been correct, it seems to me that the original broadcast violated abused that right by supporting a political campaign on air (the perfect right of anyone to speak freely) but not also making it clear that this was not just personal opinion, but part of a campaign platform from someone hopeful of securing a polticial office.
The way I think things should work, and the way they appear to have worked in this case, is that EITHER you say "blah-di-blah is wrong" on air AND admit your own political ambitions, giving your opponents the chance to have their say too to give the electorate a fair chance of understanding both sides of the issue. OR you say "blad-di-blah is wrong" and you deny yourself any political ambitions. By not doing either, these particular broadcasters are (in my reading) in the wrong and have been fairly judged, and I don't therefore see that this case poses any particular threat to free speech. Nor do I think that it sets any precedents that are anything but useful for the healthly working of democracy and freedom.
If campaign finance reform rules also make a distinction between party political campaigning, and ordinary news and commentary, then to the extent that this ruling (seems to be) reinforcing the necessity for that distinction, then yes, this is a result of campaing finance reform.
QUOTE
CruisingRam,
I have to ask- because I am not getting enough info here- is this following on the equal time issue of broadcasting? For instance, we have a radio personality here that wants to run for mayor- he can keep his job, as long as he does not political commentary on the mayors race or issues related to the mayors race- OR the radio station has to provide EQUAL time to his opponents- ALL his opponents- that is heap big air time my friend!
Sure is a heap of time to be fair. Obviously if the other side gets no air time it is unfair. Isn't that a great goal to have having equal time, kind of like a show I liked crossfire. I agree that a person who has airtime of a show has an advantage. Maybe if you have a show like that you can not run for office for 3-5 years, kind of like we try to stop government employee working for industry when they were responsible for approval on a new drug, that being a conflict of intrest. I have to ask- because I am not getting enough info here- is this following on the equal time issue of broadcasting? For instance, we have a radio personality here that wants to run for mayor- he can keep his job, as long as he does not political commentary on the mayors race or issues related to the mayors race- OR the radio station has to provide EQUAL time to his opponents- ALL his opponents- that is heap big air time my friend!
QUOTE
Howard Stern dropped out of a political race over the same issue-
Excellent tangent issue to your point. Howard Stern was responsible directly and given credit by republicans for getting them elected, like Christy Todd Whitman, Rudy also. I think I remember Christy specifically stating Howard got her elected. Glad he didn't run...QUOTE
Is this related to that issue?
I believe it should be related to the issue.QUOTE
If the commentary is on a specific issue, and it is sponsored by the station via having full time radio commentary- are they not allowing equal time then? If that is the reason- that is part of the licensing agreement for the privilege of the bandwidth-
Can you explain what you mean by privilege of bandwidth, I google it and see it is not a common term. But if you are saying maintaining freedom is an easy thing, no it is not.QUOTE
Owning bandwidth is a privilege remember- saying what you want with your own breath is free speech- and I mean free, as it doesn't cost anything LOL
You can say it is like the arab, Chinese, Russian, nations and dictators, religious societies and other authoritarians; they only let their side give the views, same as the US corporate owned media. Only the rich get their views out on a large share of the media time.QUOTE
Bandwidth is licensed by the goverment and there are alot of conditions attached to that license.
Bandwidth should not only be licensed but it should not be a corporate handout, i.e. a freebie. Our government spends a lot of money just dealing with this issue. Should it be taxpayer supported or should we receive a revenue. This is still not directly exclusive to the issue of this subject, this is a kind of tangent. This land is our land and this air is ours also including the airwaves. Thus like we do with our land, national parks we allow concessionaire to run them, they bid on a yearly fee that they pay the government a lease/fee.
QUOTE(inventor Today @ 09:30 AM)
Sure is a heap of time to be fair. Obviously if the other side gets no air time it is unfair. Isn't that a great goal to have having equal time, kind of like a show I liked crossfire. I agree that a person who has airtime of a show has an advantage. Maybe if you have a show like that you can not run for office for 3-5 years, kind of like we try to stop government employee working for industry when they were responsible for approval on a new drug, that being a conflict of intrest.
Surely you can see the possible ramifications if this continues. Most talk radio shows are political in nature. As it stands now, we let the market decide which shows are on the air. Shows that are popular and receive ratings 'books' stay, and those that don't whither away. Unfortunately for liberals, the preponderance of talk radio programs are conservative or libertarian in nature, but Air America is attempting to make inroads.
If this ruling is upheld, what is to stop groups from filing suits when a commentator takes a political position on any subject or candidate?
Do we really want a return to the Fairness Doctrine, where we get watered down 'equal time' on pain of fines and cancellation? This would affect Air America as well, not just the right wing shows.
It cannot be a conflict of interest for a host to espouse a point of view or endorse a candidate or initiative, because talk radio shows are not 'news', not endorsed or subsidized by the government.
QUOTE
Bandwidth should not only be licensed but it should not be a corporate handout, i.e. a freebie. Our government spends a lot of money just dealing with this issue. Should it be taxpayer supported or should we receive a revenue. This is still not directly exclusive to the issue of this subject, this is a kind of tangent. This land is our land and this air is ours also including the airwaves.
The FCC should protect broadcaster's property rights and their broadcast frequencies. The market should decide what shows and what content is broadcasted. If this is not to be the case, it wouldn't be public airwaves, it would be government airwaves......and the first thing any tyrant does is to seize control of the airwaves.
I don't think you understand the nature of airwaves- at this time, they are a limited resource- there is not enough for every tom dick and harry to open up a radio station. There is a very good reason for the FCC to regulate it. FCC was the ones that have fined Howard Stern and Janet Jackson (or thier parent stations actually)-
There is no real practical limit on say, your home printing press, except for the cost of your supplies- so the "free press" is truly "free" LOL-
New technology is making some of this argument moot- because, as I type on the internet- there is another low cost free speech media.
But like I said- I still don't have the info- why did the judge do what he did? Was it an outreach of the FCC equal time laws, or was it part of campaign finance reform?
Or, maybe even a combo of both?
I am a firm believer of the equal time regs in the FCC- so that is why I want to know.
There is no real practical limit on say, your home printing press, except for the cost of your supplies- so the "free press" is truly "free" LOL-
New technology is making some of this argument moot- because, as I type on the internet- there is another low cost free speech media.
But like I said- I still don't have the info- why did the judge do what he did? Was it an outreach of the FCC equal time laws, or was it part of campaign finance reform?
Or, maybe even a combo of both? I am a firm believer of the equal time regs in the FCC- so that is why I want to know.
QUOTE
Surely you can see the possible ramifications if this continues. Most talk radio shows are political in nature. As it stands now, we let the market decide which shows are on the air. Shows that are popular and receive ratings 'books' stay, and those that don't whither away. Unfortunately for liberals, the preponderance of talk radio programs are conservative or libertarian in nature, but Air America is attempting to make inroads.
Not only talk radio but all mass media except internet as pointed out by other poster. Yes I do understand your point and concern of opening a can of worms. As I did not clearly state, Freedom is not an easy thing, it is like a relationship with a significant other, it takes work…. there are some difficult issues that have to be addressed that we seem to completely selectively stay away from like this because it is difficult for the average person to understand the trade offs. Humans do not have the attention span to deal with it. Let the market decide is letting the advertisers decide, is that always the best or ever the right way. That is just code for saying letting the rich decide.QUOTE
If this ruling is upheld, what is to stop groups from filing suits when a commentator takes a political position on any subject or candidate?
I didn’t say freedom would be easy… In my book their should be a mirror show to this, when FCC gives a license if there is one political talk radio to the right there should be one to the left. Same broadcast strength. If the righty owned corporations/advertisers will not advertise then the fees raised by the airwave licensing fees will pay for the costs of the competing station. QUOTE
Do we really want a return to the Fairness Doctrine, where we get watered down 'equal time' on pain of fines and cancellation? This would affect Air America as well, not just the right wing shows.
It cannot be a conflict of interest for a host to espouse a point of view or endorse a candidate or initiative, because talk radio shows are not 'news', not endorsed or subsidized by the government.
Yes we do, it was only Reagan who vetoed the fairness doctrine. (my guess any person to the right would now also, they see the clear benefits now) But as I said we can have matching stations to deal with this. It cannot be a conflict of interest for a host to espouse a point of view or endorse a candidate or initiative, because talk radio shows are not 'news', not endorsed or subsidized by the government.
QUOTE
The FCC should protect broadcaster's property rights and their broadcast frequencies. The market should decide what shows and what content is broadcasted. If this is not to be the case, it wouldn't be public airwaves, it would be government airwaves......and the first thing any tyrant does is to seize control of the airwaves.
That is fine and dandy if you like the Kings owning the message/propaganda.… It isn’t public airwaves it is the airwaves of the rich and famous defense contractors and righty owned corporations. After all the defense contractors are using public money to buy these message delivery systems. From what I read of this judges decision he is right on tract/point to stop the Kings..
I am a very, very big fan of the fairness doctrine when it comes to publically owned airwaves, I think we have seen enormous abuses when it comes to this issue- and it should be expanded, not curtailed.
This is one area that the free market should absolutely NOT be allowed to dictate, because it allows corporate propaganda to rule the day- which, we already see, how about that!
If it were up to me, we would adopt a BBC type policy for all PUBLIC bandwidth- and allow whatever in cable.
This is one area that the free market should absolutely NOT be allowed to dictate, because it allows corporate propaganda to rule the day- which, we already see, how about that!
If it were up to me, we would adopt a BBC type policy for all PUBLIC bandwidth- and allow whatever in cable.
Oh, I know that it was Reagan that dismissed the Fairness Doctrine, and thank god for it. When you say: In my book their should be a mirror show to this, when FCC gives a license if there is one political talk radio to the right there should be one to the left. Same broadcast strength. If the righty owned corporations/advertisers will not advertise then the fees raised by the airwave licensing fees will pay for the costs of the competing station.
There should be a mirror show even if the demand isn't there for it? The public tax dollars should either subsidize or make up for the FCC to subsidize the ability for these programs to exist?
I have the freedom to buy any political book that I wish, much like the freedom to listen to any radio station, does your logic mean that the government should spend tax dollars to print books from one side or the other that are not being bought by the public? Both fall under the first amendment as freedom of speech......but I can't find the passage in the constitution that states equal time must be given to both sides. To be consistent, you would have to broaden your government intervention of the airwaves, the public airwaves......to include all of the third parties. After all, not being a republican or a democrat, I'm not hearing MY side espoused.
There should be a mirror show even if the demand isn't there for it? The public tax dollars should either subsidize or make up for the FCC to subsidize the ability for these programs to exist?
I have the freedom to buy any political book that I wish, much like the freedom to listen to any radio station, does your logic mean that the government should spend tax dollars to print books from one side or the other that are not being bought by the public? Both fall under the first amendment as freedom of speech......but I can't find the passage in the constitution that states equal time must be given to both sides. To be consistent, you would have to broaden your government intervention of the airwaves, the public airwaves......to include all of the third parties. After all, not being a republican or a democrat, I'm not hearing MY side espoused.
You are right- there is nothing in the consitution whatsoever- and I am not arguing that there is- but there is FCC regulations-
do you agree that then any corporation should be able to play anything they wish as long as the paying public tunes them in?
So, soft core porn at 8pm is no biggie, as long as the ratings stay high?
You either regulate it or don't- to be consistant- PUBLIC airwaves are a commodity regulated and passed out by the FCC- we deal very harshly with folks that set up "pirate" radio stations, don't we?
If we had true freedom in this manner, you and I could buy the neccesary equipment, stake a claim to some dead air between channels, and have a point counter-point show as we speak-
Right now, I could afford the equipment- maybe even a couple of staff to help us out DTOM- but no way in hades could I afford the licence for the actual "channel"-
So, public airwaves are not 'FREE SPEECH' - in the terms that just anyone can do it, unlike, you and I making a printing press and passing out pamphlets.
That is why I support the fairness doctrine- in a finite resource, that is sanctioned by the goverment, that is not extraction resource related (not everyone has free access to mineral rights- some states include it in property, others, like Alaska, do not, so it is a finite resource that extraction license is granted by the goverment)
If it is a public resource, yes, everyone should have equal access to it, regardless of financial ability.
Absolutely third parties should have equal access, and it is a very, very legitimate complaint by those parties- it is, in effect, goverment sponsored propaganda and campaigning for a two party system that we have now!
do you agree that then any corporation should be able to play anything they wish as long as the paying public tunes them in?
So, soft core porn at 8pm is no biggie, as long as the ratings stay high?
You either regulate it or don't- to be consistant- PUBLIC airwaves are a commodity regulated and passed out by the FCC- we deal very harshly with folks that set up "pirate" radio stations, don't we?
If we had true freedom in this manner, you and I could buy the neccesary equipment, stake a claim to some dead air between channels, and have a point counter-point show as we speak-
Right now, I could afford the equipment- maybe even a couple of staff to help us out DTOM- but no way in hades could I afford the licence for the actual "channel"-
So, public airwaves are not 'FREE SPEECH' - in the terms that just anyone can do it, unlike, you and I making a printing press and passing out pamphlets.
That is why I support the fairness doctrine- in a finite resource, that is sanctioned by the goverment, that is not extraction resource related (not everyone has free access to mineral rights- some states include it in property, others, like Alaska, do not, so it is a finite resource that extraction license is granted by the goverment)
If it is a public resource, yes, everyone should have equal access to it, regardless of financial ability.
Absolutely third parties should have equal access, and it is a very, very legitimate complaint by those parties- it is, in effect, goverment sponsored propaganda and campaigning for a two party system that we have now!
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 20 2005, 09:42 AM)
Oh, I know that it was Reagan that dismissed the Fairness Doctrine, and thank god for it. When you say: In my book their should be a mirror show to this, when FCC gives a license if there is one political talk radio to the right there should be one to the left. Same broadcast strength. If the righty owned corporations/advertisers will not advertise then the fees raised by the airwave licensing fees will pay for the costs of the competing station.
There should be a mirror show even if the demand isn't there for it? The public tax dollars should either subsidize or make up for the FCC to subsidize the ability for these programs to exist?
I have the freedom to buy any political book that I wish, much like the freedom to listen to any radio station, does your logic mean that the government should spend tax dollars to print books from one side or the other that are not being bought by the public? Both fall under the first amendment as freedom of speech......but I can't find the passage in the constitution that states equal time must be given to both sides. To be consistent, you would have to broaden your government intervention of the airwaves, the public airwaves......to include all of the third parties. After all, not being a republican or a democrat, I'm not hearing MY side espoused.
There should be a mirror show even if the demand isn't there for it? The public tax dollars should either subsidize or make up for the FCC to subsidize the ability for these programs to exist?
I have the freedom to buy any political book that I wish, much like the freedom to listen to any radio station, does your logic mean that the government should spend tax dollars to print books from one side or the other that are not being bought by the public? Both fall under the first amendment as freedom of speech......but I can't find the passage in the constitution that states equal time must be given to both sides. To be consistent, you would have to broaden your government intervention of the airwaves, the public airwaves......to include all of the third parties. After all, not being a republican or a democrat, I'm not hearing MY side espoused.
We can play the shell game any way you want, right now taxpayer money is paying to have these airwaves policed, so that is taxpayer subsidized. We do not see the rightys crying about this government handout do we. Now to shift the shell we are only taking the money in my method from the licensing fees being generated.
Remember freedom of the “press” was only given as the founders did not envision the TV or Radio at that time. Just as my parallel argument that the founders did not envision weapons like atomic bombs as arms, when a muzzle loaded gun was state of the art and not improved in several hundred years. How could they understand the size of the explosion or size of the distribution of a radio wave. Quantities of newspapers could not even be distributed over 50 miles away due to distribution limitations. a single horse power...
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 20 2005, 10:57 AM)
[We can play the shell game any way you want, right now taxpayer money is paying to have these airwaves policed, so that is taxpayer subsidized. We do not see the rightys crying about this government handout do we. Now to shift the shell we are only taking the money in my method from the licensing fees being generated.
I guess if the city paid for the sidewalk in the front of my yard they can regulate my political speech when I converse with my neighbors. Until my son turned 18 I got a tax credit for him. Does this someway limit my 1st Amendment rights?
I thought liberals were supposed to be the defenders of civil liberties. Freedom of speech is arguably the most vital of our civil rights. Let me quote Michelle Malkin concerning this case:
QUOTE
Two years ago, when the federal campaign-finance law reached the U.S. Supreme Court, dissenting justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas warned that something like this would happen. We doubted it; it seemed clear to us that the law applied to ads, not editorial content. We thought Thomas was over the top when he said campaign-finance law was leading toward "outright regulation of the press."
Judge Wickham has made a step toward just that. It is a dangerous, unconstitutional ruling. The losers need to appeal it and the appellate courts need to reverse it.
Judge Wickham has made a step toward just that. It is a dangerous, unconstitutional ruling. The losers need to appeal it and the appellate courts need to reverse it.
I suggest if you wish radio political speech to be balanced you turn your dial to a liberal talk show. There are a few out there. There would be more if anyone listened to their tripe.
It is not quite that simple- if we had restrictions on how many stations a corporation could own- I would agree with you- but since there are basically only four corpoations that own all the stations now- there is no independence, and abuses abound, and we have debated them here-
and once again- like with other issues regarding certain "rights and freedoms"- there is a blending of privilege and right- it is a right for Hugo and CR to go to the street corner, in a public place on a public walkway, as long as we don't cause harm by blocking the walkway, to stand on our soapbox and deliver a soliliquey- whereas, Hugo and CR don't have access to the airwaves in a free and equal fashion- this is one reason the goverment regulates it, and can fine free speech, such as with "public decency" standards (even though we can't even agree on what the heck that is) - because the resource is limitied, and entry to the resource is limited.
I would totally agree if Hugo and I had unrestricted unlimited access to start our own FM station, playing some serious funk and rock, and debate our issues between songs, but that can't happen- despite the fact I am not a poor person, as an individual, even with a loan of a million dollars, could not start up a radio station of any consequence or power.
So the "restriction of free speech" really amounts to "restriction of a monopoly power from delivering self serving propaganda 24/7"
Hugo- the public bandwidth, TV and Radio, NEVER has had equal access, nor has it been allowed to truly exist in a "free market"
AND in fact, there are frequencies YOU CAN"T buy because the goverment restricts them to themselves.
SOOO
1) Free market is a non-issue in this debate, because the market is not free nor can it practically ever be free
2) Speech in this medium is a privilage, not a right
3) Unless there is equal access for all, it is not truly free speech either
and once again- like with other issues regarding certain "rights and freedoms"- there is a blending of privilege and right- it is a right for Hugo and CR to go to the street corner, in a public place on a public walkway, as long as we don't cause harm by blocking the walkway, to stand on our soapbox and deliver a soliliquey- whereas, Hugo and CR don't have access to the airwaves in a free and equal fashion- this is one reason the goverment regulates it, and can fine free speech, such as with "public decency" standards (even though we can't even agree on what the heck that is) - because the resource is limitied, and entry to the resource is limited.
I would totally agree if Hugo and I had unrestricted unlimited access to start our own FM station, playing some serious funk and rock, and debate our issues between songs, but that can't happen- despite the fact I am not a poor person, as an individual, even with a loan of a million dollars, could not start up a radio station of any consequence or power.
So the "restriction of free speech" really amounts to "restriction of a monopoly power from delivering self serving propaganda 24/7"
Hugo- the public bandwidth, TV and Radio, NEVER has had equal access, nor has it been allowed to truly exist in a "free market"
AND in fact, there are frequencies YOU CAN"T buy because the goverment restricts them to themselves.
SOOO
1) Free market is a non-issue in this debate, because the market is not free nor can it practically ever be free
2) Speech in this medium is a privilage, not a right
3) Unless there is equal access for all, it is not truly free speech either
What CR fails to recognize is the content of radio is driven by the consumer.
We all have a vote on what goes on the radio. Everytime you turn that dial you are placing your vote. What ticks liberals off is they are losing that vote. Corporations don't have a great success rate at creating demand. They are pretty good at meeting customer demand. I do have some control over the what airs on the public airways. Like I said before if you want liberal talk radio you have to actually listen to it.
As far as public decency is concerned: our founding fathers were not real concerned about protecting the speech of pornographers, their major concern was political speech. That is what is going on here, a further erosion of the 1st Amendment an attack on political speech. I also hear more libertarian views expressed on talk radio then I do on television. Talk radio does a much better job than television at breaking the two party monopoly, which once again is primarily due to customer demand. When only 3 people out of a thousand vote Libertarian you can't expect much media attention. The little media attention the libertarian philosophy does get comes from talk radio.
Yep, and there is land I can't buy because government restricts it for themselves. Are you suggesting we abolish the !st Amendments free speech clause just like we recently rid ourselves of those pesky restrictions of use of eminent domain in the 5th.
We all have a vote on what goes on the radio. Everytime you turn that dial you are placing your vote. What ticks liberals off is they are losing that vote. Corporations don't have a great success rate at creating demand. They are pretty good at meeting customer demand. I do have some control over the what airs on the public airways. Like I said before if you want liberal talk radio you have to actually listen to it.
As far as public decency is concerned: our founding fathers were not real concerned about protecting the speech of pornographers, their major concern was political speech. That is what is going on here, a further erosion of the 1st Amendment an attack on political speech. I also hear more libertarian views expressed on talk radio then I do on television. Talk radio does a much better job than television at breaking the two party monopoly, which once again is primarily due to customer demand. When only 3 people out of a thousand vote Libertarian you can't expect much media attention. The little media attention the libertarian philosophy does get comes from talk radio.
QUOTE
AND in fact, there are frequencies YOU CAN"T buy because the goverment restricts them to themselves.
Yep, and there is land I can't buy because government restricts it for themselves. Are you suggesting we abolish the !st Amendments free speech clause just like we recently rid ourselves of those pesky restrictions of use of eminent domain in the 5th.
QUOTE
Hugo,
I guess if the city paid for the sidewalk in the front of my yard they can regulate my political speech when I converse with my neighbors. Until my son turned 18 I got a tax credit for him. Does this someway limit my 1st Amendment rights?
No, you get to rebut his comments... I understand your points but do not think this is as good of an example as you are trying to convey, give it more thought you may hit one a bit more direct.I guess if the city paid for the sidewalk in the front of my yard they can regulate my political speech when I converse with my neighbors. Until my son turned 18 I got a tax credit for him. Does this someway limit my 1st Amendment rights?
QUOTE
I thought liberals were supposed to be the defenders of civil liberties. Freedom of speech is arguably the most vital of our civil rights. Let me quote Michelle Malkin concerning this case:
I presently do not see the rf or print media as being free speech, I see it more like Saddam network or anyone like that. Yes that is what we are looking for a media that is balanced. CR hit some and more points I would have had.QUOTE
Judge Wickham has made a step toward just that. It is a dangerous, unconstitutional ruling. The losers need to appeal it and the appellate courts need to reverse it
I respectfully disagree. QUOTE
I suggest if you wish radio political speech to be balanced you turn your dial to a liberal talk show. There are a few out there. There would be more if anyone listened to their tripe.
CR points cover this well. to add to his points in support, who said this. (hardly a liberal)(also note this is a few years ago and more consolidation has occured)
http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/IS2001/newsmedia.htm
QUOTE
Ethics and News Reporting
The news media today balances the interests of the shareholders and advertising dollars, with reporting accurate and reliable information to the citizen. Compounding the problem are nine vertically integrated conglomerates that control everything we watch, hear, or read. Under the protection of the First Amendment, the American news media has historically been a self-policing industry. The new dynamics of corporate consolidation and profit incentive have introduced new challenges in ensuring that the news media continue to serve the citizen first, and shareholders second. Media watchdog organizations such as the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the media critical magazine, Brill’s Content, are making efforts to ensure that the media remain as unbiased as possible. A summary of the essay, The Newspaper Citizen, Advertising, and Shareholders—Balancing Priorities Under the Internet Umbrella, follows and examines some of these issues in more detail.
The news media today balances the interests of the shareholders and advertising dollars, with reporting accurate and reliable information to the citizen. Compounding the problem are nine vertically integrated conglomerates that control everything we watch, hear, or read. Under the protection of the First Amendment, the American news media has historically been a self-policing industry. The new dynamics of corporate consolidation and profit incentive have introduced new challenges in ensuring that the news media continue to serve the citizen first, and shareholders second. Media watchdog organizations such as the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the media critical magazine, Brill’s Content, are making efforts to ensure that the media remain as unbiased as possible. A summary of the essay, The Newspaper Citizen, Advertising, and Shareholders—Balancing Priorities Under the Internet Umbrella, follows and examines some of these issues in more detail.
Hugo, Not really, to shoot your premiss in the foot... the rumor is the washington times, a Rev Sun Yong Moon (Korean national) publication has been losing money from day one. This kind of proves from the right, there are other motivations not consumer or profit driven. Same with the religious networks. Also the military industrial complex is too deeply involved in ownership.
Your second point I would like to see the political airwaves not by what you vote but by what you register as. Thus possible opening the airwaves to other political leanings. so two righty channels two liberal ones, and one libertarian and one green and one ultra right wing militia type. I have a dream... then I wake up. I liked Bill Maher a libertarian a lot. Was bummed that the right wing pulled him off the midnight time slot. Too late for me, used the VCR.
Your second point I would like to see the political airwaves not by what you vote but by what you register as. Thus possible opening the airwaves to other political leanings. so two righty channels two liberal ones, and one libertarian and one green and one ultra right wing militia type. I have a dream... then I wake up. I liked Bill Maher a libertarian a lot. Was bummed that the right wing pulled him off the midnight time slot. Too late for me, used the VCR.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Jul 20 2005, 08:55 AM)
What CR fails to recognize is the content of radio is driven by the consumer.
We all have a vote on what goes on the radio. Everytime you turn that dial you are placing your vote.
We all have a vote on what goes on the radio. Everytime you turn that dial you are placing your vote.
QUOTE
AND in fact, there are frequencies YOU CAN"T buy because the goverment restricts them to themselves.
I would agree with you if it were A TRULY FREE MARKET- let us take every AD member on this board, and pool our combined resources and ability to leverage a very large amount of money to buy a high powered radio station to do nothing but put out our views- and we are unconcerned about even making money with advertisers or anything- we just want to be heard- THERE IS NO GUARUNTEE THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO BUY THAT STATION- because someone is controlling our access to those airwaves- so, our free speech is restricted before we even have an attempt to speak.
Regardles of who is "winning " the talk radio wars, unless the airwaves are TRULY FREE MARKET- your argument falls flat, because I can not just go and buy myself a radio station.
ONCE AGAIN, IF RADIO BECAME A TRULY FREE MARKET- I would totally agree with you- it is very similar to the pharmicist having to give certian drugs argument-
The goverment created a false class of entrepeneur, one that really exists quasi-outside the free market- not just anyone can sell pharmaceuticals, even if they are proven safe as recomended- the same with our airwaves- they are a false free market- because not just anyone with cash can buy one- and, until that is the case, there is no free market force to mass PUBLIC AIRWAVE media, whether it is TV or Radio.
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 20 2005, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE
Hugo,
I guess if the city paid for the sidewalk in the front of my yard they can regulate my political speech when I converse with my neighbors. Until my son turned 18 I got a tax credit for him. Does this someway limit my 1st Amendment rights?
No, you get to rebut his comments... I understand your points but do not think this is as good of an example as you are trying to convey, give it more thought you may hit one a bit more direct.I guess if the city paid for the sidewalk in the front of my yard they can regulate my political speech when I converse with my neighbors. Until my son turned 18 I got a tax credit for him. Does this someway limit my 1st Amendment rights?
QUOTE
I thought liberals were supposed to be the defenders of civil liberties. Freedom of speech is arguably the most vital of our civil rights. Let me quote Michelle Malkin concerning this case:
I presently do not see the rf or print media as being free speech, I see it more like Saddam network or anyone like that. Yes that is what we are looking for a media that is balanced. CR hit some and more points I would have had.QUOTE
Judge Wickham has made a step toward just that. It is a dangerous, unconstitutional ruling. The losers need to appeal it and the appellate courts need to reverse it
I respectfully disagree. QUOTE
I suggest if you wish radio political speech to be balanced you turn your dial to a liberal talk show. There are a few out there. There would be more if anyone listened to their tripe.
CR points cover this well. to add to his points in support, who said this. (hardly a liberal)
http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/IS2001/newsmedia.htm
QUOTE
Ethics and News Reporting
The news media today balances the interests of the shareholders and advertising dollars, with reporting accurate and reliable information to the citizen. Compounding the problem are nine vertically integrated conglomerates that control everything we watch, hear, or read. Under the protection of the First Amendment, the American news media has historically been a self-policing industry. The new dynamics of corporate consolidation and profit incentive have introduced new challenges in ensuring that the news media continue to serve the citizen first, and shareholders second. Media watchdog organizations such as the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the media critical magazine, Brill’s Content, are making efforts to ensure that the media remain as unbiased as possible. A summary of the essay, The Newspaper Citizen, Advertising, and Shareholders—Balancing Priorities Under the Internet Umbrella, follows and examines some of these issues in more detail.
The news media today balances the interests of the shareholders and advertising dollars, with reporting accurate and reliable information to the citizen. Compounding the problem are nine vertically integrated conglomerates that control everything we watch, hear, or read. Under the protection of the First Amendment, the American news media has historically been a self-policing industry. The new dynamics of corporate consolidation and profit incentive have introduced new challenges in ensuring that the news media continue to serve the citizen first, and shareholders second. Media watchdog organizations such as the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the media critical magazine, Brill’s Content, are making efforts to ensure that the media remain as unbiased as possible. A summary of the essay, The Newspaper Citizen, Advertising, and Shareholders—Balancing Priorities Under the Internet Umbrella, follows and examines some of these issues in more detail.
It only takes about 6-7 companies to give the consumer approximately 95% of the benefits of pure competition. I can walk in Barnes and Nobles and find William Buckley and Noam Chomsky side by side (actually their books). There is no reason talk radio should be balanced or unbiased. Those reporting news should try to avoid bias, not those editorializing.
Corporations have one legitimate function, increase shareholder value. They do this by providing a product the customer demands. Want to change the content of talk radio, listen to them liberal talk shows. Don't tread on the 1st Amendment.
And no goverment entity will restrict Hugo and CR from opening a competing book store right next to barnes and noble- whereas, I can not open a radio station on the same airwave as any other radio station- once again, no fair or free market- that bookstore can fail or succeed on it's own biz model- not so with radio.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 20 2005, 01:17 PM)
And no goverment entity will restrict Hugo and CR from opening a competing book store right next to barnes and noble- whereas, I can not open a radio station on the same airwave as any other radio station- once again, no fair or free market- that bookstore can fail or succeed on it's own biz model- not so with radio.
Once again, the consumer ultimately chooses what is aired. Airwaves, just like everything else, are a scarce resource. Not everyone can broadcast without radio being nothing but static. The fact the government regulates something does not mean that also gives the government the right to throw out the Bill of Rights.
From inventor's quote:
QUOTE
The new dynamics of corporate consolidation and profit incentive have introduced new challenges in ensuring that the news media continue to serve the citizen first, and shareholders second.
The job of a corporation is to serve the shareholders, they do this by pleasing the consumer.
From the links provided it appears that the DJ's were running a political campaign from their radio program. It seems clear to me that this oversteps the boundary between talk radio and politics...and there IS a boundary.
I agree with CR wholeheartedly. Public airwaves must be maintained by the FCC and should be subject to the fairness doctrine. Their use is purchased from the government. The ability to even bid on the license is determined by the government.
Because the public airwaves are occupied by a vbery small and exclusive club their use must be regulated.
If we desire fairness in our democratic process we absolutely MUST force the few media giants to practice equal access. Beside selling only their politics to the masses there would plenty of other abuses that conservatives would suddenly disagree with.
Sex, crude humor and violence are the clear winners in the free-market of Hollywood and cable television. Howard Stern proves it is so on radio. I'm sure the "right" would suddenly ask for more regulation if the public airwaves (see Janet Jackson incident) were truly open to the free market.
I agree with CR wholeheartedly. Public airwaves must be maintained by the FCC and should be subject to the fairness doctrine. Their use is purchased from the government. The ability to even bid on the license is determined by the government.
Because the public airwaves are occupied by a vbery small and exclusive club their use must be regulated.
If we desire fairness in our democratic process we absolutely MUST force the few media giants to practice equal access. Beside selling only their politics to the masses there would plenty of other abuses that conservatives would suddenly disagree with.
Sex, crude humor and violence are the clear winners in the free-market of Hollywood and cable television. Howard Stern proves it is so on radio. I'm sure the "right" would suddenly ask for more regulation if the public airwaves (see Janet Jackson incident) were truly open to the free market.
A fundamental flaw in the utopian vision of the fairness doctrine and equal time is this, who decides whom to balance against whom?
If I am a talk show host, must I declare my political leanings in order to broadcast? If I am pro-abortion but anti-death penalty, am I conservative or liberal? If I am in favor of border security but also an ardent environmentalist, am I a libertarian or a green?
The only fair and consistent method is the one we have now, where the listeners, the station and the market decides what gets broadcast and at what times.
If you attempt to install a draconian, fascist structure on the public airwaves, to be logically consistent with the first amendment, you would have to do the same to newspapers and television, because like it or not inventor, radio and print are components of free speech (strange Saddam reference aside).
Remember, the watering down of the market by enforcing a 1984 new speak will harm the liberal talk shows as well. Democracy Now, Air America and Pacifica radio aren't as prolific as Clear Channel, but they have a sizable audience too.
If I am a talk show host, must I declare my political leanings in order to broadcast? If I am pro-abortion but anti-death penalty, am I conservative or liberal? If I am in favor of border security but also an ardent environmentalist, am I a libertarian or a green?
The only fair and consistent method is the one we have now, where the listeners, the station and the market decides what gets broadcast and at what times.
If you attempt to install a draconian, fascist structure on the public airwaves, to be logically consistent with the first amendment, you would have to do the same to newspapers and television, because like it or not inventor, radio and print are components of free speech (strange Saddam reference aside).
Remember, the watering down of the market by enforcing a 1984 new speak will harm the liberal talk shows as well. Democracy Now, Air America and Pacifica radio aren't as prolific as Clear Channel, but they have a sizable audience too.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 20 2005, 01:42 PM)
A fundamental flaw in the utopian vision of the fairness doctrine and equal time is this, who decides whom to balance against whom?
If I am a talk show host, must I declare my political leanings in order to broadcast? If I am pro-abortion but anti-death penalty, am I conservative or liberal? If I am in favor of border security but also an ardent environmentalist, am I a libertarian or a green?
The only fair and consistent method is the one we have now, where the listeners, the station and the market decides what gets broadcast and at what times.
If you attempt to install a draconian, fascist structure on the public airwaves, to be logically consistent with the first amendment, you would have to do the same to newspapers and television, because like it or not inventor , radio and print are components of free speech (strange Saddam reference aside).
If I am a talk show host, must I declare my political leanings in order to broadcast? If I am pro-abortion but anti-death penalty, am I conservative or liberal? If I am in favor of border security but also an ardent environmentalist, am I a libertarian or a green?
The only fair and consistent method is the one we have now, where the listeners, the station and the market decides what gets broadcast and at what times.
If you attempt to install a draconian, fascist structure on the public airwaves, to be logically consistent with the first amendment, you would have to do the same to newspapers and television, because like it or not inventor , radio and print are components of free speech (strange Saddam reference aside).
You are absolutely right. Law of unintended consequences and all. Imagine, if someone wanted to interview a violent fascist skinhead, they would be bound to give equal time to a violent socialist - earth liberation front or something? Call me crazy, but based on the current incompetence at the FCC I sure don't want these guys making value judgements about "fairness."
By the way, did anyone see what these radio guys did in response to the judge's order? link
QUOTE
The gas-tax opponents who were slapped for not reporting radio commentaries as "in-kind" contributions to their ballot-initiative campaign have fired back.
In complying with the judge’s order, they’ve made new campaign-finance filings listing every single radio broadcast and newspaper article about the initiative as “contributions,” since all of the news coverage fueled signature gathering and fundraising.
Of course, these disclosures are every bit as absurd as reporting the commentaries of two talk-radio jocks who support the I-912 campaign -- Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson -- but that’s just the point.
In complying with the judge’s order, they’ve made new campaign-finance filings listing every single radio broadcast and newspaper article about the initiative as “contributions,” since all of the news coverage fueled signature gathering and fundraising.
Of course, these disclosures are every bit as absurd as reporting the commentaries of two talk-radio jocks who support the I-912 campaign -- Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson -- but that’s just the point.
QUOTE
Remember the watering down of the market by enforcing a 1984 new speak will harm the liberal talk shows as well. Democracy Now, Air America and Pacifica radio aren't as prolific as Clear Channel, but they have a sizable audience too.
It's funny that you mentioned Pacifica. Did you know that they receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, just like NPR and PBS? I always wonder why PBS has to at least pay lip-service to "balance" but no questions the leftist Pacifica network receiving tax dollars.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Jul 20 2005, 01:40 PM)
From the links provided it appears that the DJ's were running a political campaign from their radio program. It seems clear to me that this oversteps the boundary between talk radio and politics...and there IS a boundary.
I agree with CR wholeheartedly. Public airwaves must be maintained by the FCC and should be subject to the fairness doctrine. Their use is purchased from the government. The ability to even bid on the license is determined by the government.
Because the public airwaves are occupied by a vbery small and exclusive club their use must be regulated.
If we desire fairness in our democratic process we absolutely MUST force the few media giants to practice equal access. Beside selling only their politics to the masses there would plenty of other abuses that conservatives would suddenly disagree with.
Sex, crude humor and violence are the clear winners in the free-market of Hollywood and cable television. Howard Stern proves it is so on radio. I'm sure the "right" would suddenly ask for more regulation if the public airwaves (see Janet Jackson incident) were truly open to the free market.
The bottom line, whether or not you like is that broadcasters are not bound by the fairness doctrine, which I believe would be one of the most egregious assaults on the first amendment one could think of. Feel free to lobby for it's return.
All an FCC license does is guarantee that they may use a certain radio frequency at a certain power output, with a few other technical guidelines. Fisher Broadcasting paid the FCC license fee for the right to broadcast at that frequency and wattage. The standards apply only to decency while using public airwaves, not political speech.
I believe that the first amendment was written specifically to cover this sort political speech. KVI hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur have the right to make whatever political statements they want on their radio programs without infringement, so long as they aren't obscene or inciting violence or a panic.
If espousing political commentary on a commentary talk show, heard by the masses, and subject to the whims of the market, then why would we not place the same restrictions on what content may be advertised on those stations? If churches or political action groups can buy advertising time on the public airwaves, then shouldn't the state govern what who can buy what blocks of ad time, to ensure fairness?
The ultimate fairness doctrine is already at work; if the listeners don't want to hear the opinions or commentary aired on a particular station, they leave. Advertisers soon follow, and the station either changes its programming or whithers and dies.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey Today @ 01:58 PM)
It's funny that you mentioned Pacifica. Did you know that they receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, just like NPR and PBS?
Gee, I could have gone the rest of the day without knowing that
I was working under the belief that the two DJ's were organizing petition signings and money raising using the airwaves. This would be the reason for the judges decision.
If they were simply speaking their minds on the issue there is no foul. But if they are doing the stuff of political campaigning then there is a problem.
If these men were simply sharing their personal beliefs and nothing else this case would fly straight to the highest court in the state and then possibly to D.C.
..because it WOULD then be a 1st ammendment issue. I simply don't think that is the case. I would like to get an example of what they were doing specifically. I will assume that the judge had this information because an all-out assault on the Constitution like that would otherwise be folly...
If they were simply speaking their minds on the issue there is no foul. But if they are doing the stuff of political campaigning then there is a problem.
If these men were simply sharing their personal beliefs and nothing else this case would fly straight to the highest court in the state and then possibly to D.C.
..because it WOULD then be a 1st ammendment issue. I simply don't think that is the case. I would like to get an example of what they were doing specifically. I will assume that the judge had this information because an all-out assault on the Constitution like that would otherwise be folly...
QUOTE
Dontreadonme
A fundamental flaw in the utopian vision of the fairness doctrine and equal time is this, who decides whom to balance against whom?
It may have had provisions before for guidance. I am not a fan of this system more of two radio stations in each market and TV for each party. But since you did ask, my way of doing it would be which ever party is power the committee that determines it is the opposing party. This should provide a natural balance, pendulum effect. A fundamental flaw in the utopian vision of the fairness doctrine and equal time is this, who decides whom to balance against whom?
QUOTE
If I am a talk show host, must I declare my political leanings in order to broadcast? If I am pro-abortion but anti-death penalty, am I conservative or liberal? If I am in favor of border security but also an ardent environmentalist, am I a libertarian or a green?
Again I never said freedom is clear cut either, but they seemed to work with the fairness doctrine till Reagan vetoed it. Obviously it is skued to the republicans by not having it. QUOTE
The only fair and consistent method is the one we have now, where the listeners, the station and the market decides what gets broadcast and at what times.
Your opinion, not mine... Again you would want the fairness doctrine if you were telling the truth that it is a liberal media.... QUOTE
If you attempt to install a draconian, fascist structure on the public airwaves, to be logically consistent with the first amendment, you would have to do the same to newspapers and television, because like it or not inventor, radio and print are components of free speech (strange Saddam reference aside).
No I want the minority to always be heard even if the republicans are in the minority. And yes I would like to see it on television, and something done with the newspapers also. My concept for the newspaper where there is only one in the market is one side of the paper is the right and one side is written by the left. So when you pick up your newspaper you can either read from the back or the front, (color code it red or blue) when you hit the center you hit the editorial page on each side to meet halfway...QUOTE
Remember, the watering down of the market by enforcing a 1984 new speak will harm the liberal talk shows as well. Democracy Now, Air America and Pacifica radio aren't as prolific as Clear Channel, but they have a sizable audience too.
I do not know if it will harm, but right now it is a disgrace that the USA is rated number 22 for free speech in the media. Again where the USA should never be second is freedom of our media.... I will guess republicans will not care or lose any sleep about that... Now I will hit another subject here. hypothetical,,, If I candidate for the silver party want to run, I have to run ads in the media. Thus I take my money and spend it to get elected. I pay the media companies my money and these same companies are supporting my competitor. Thus I am paying these defense contractors or corporate owners to give to my competitors. Thus a un-fairness doctrine is already in action......
I've floated this concept before, but I think the difference here is that fair balance in the media is itself a "liberal" idea.
Everyone here would, I suspect, agree that NPR is about the most liberal-leaning radio network in the USA. They can and do interview hardline republicans and other right wingers with a straight face, although (as conservatives never tire of pointing out), the bias in liberal media is most often biased at the editorial rather than correspondent level.
On the other hand, Conservatives and libertarians tend to favour the free market as the means to provide balance (even when it is not quite as free as the market pretends, as CR has consistently pointed out). They tend to laugh at or belittle caller they disagree with, cut them off halfway through, or deny them access altogether. The bias is both editorially- AND correspondent-based.
It's true that these practices make for good confrontational entertainment - which must be why so many "liberals" tune in. But while it is the free market when the only voices they air are editorially selected to make for the greatest possible amount of controversy, it isn't free speech.
But all this isn't really relevant to the particular case that inspired the debate question - the person reprimanded by the court was told off because they were using their radio platform to espouse their political platform as part of an election campaign. The free market has nothing to do with it - he was cheating the free market (and the electoral process) by using his position to cheat the opposition of their chance to get their message across. This guy wasn't buying the airtime for his platform (which would give the opponents the chance to compete, even if they failed). He didn't own the radio station (which would aslo have been open to competition). He was cheating. He got caught. Big deal. Who did he cheat? Not the opposition - the electorate. This whole issue is a right-wing stalking horse to allow them to consolidate their pre-existing stranglehold on the levers of power.
And they don't see anything wrong with that, because the ends justify the means, and if the liberals had any sense they would realise that the best way to compete would be to cheat harder than them - except when they do try that, suddenly that's venal corruption in high places and worthy of impeachment.
This isn't a fundamental archetype of the right wing in general, but it does seem to be a concept that the current crop of right wingers in the USA seem a little too comfortable with.
And yes, this is a right-wing-bashing rant. Being a liberal, I think it's only fair to have one on this thread, beacuse I think the whole thing is just a fabricated excuse for liberal bashing to deflect attention from a fellow traveller who's been caught in the wrong.
Everyone here would, I suspect, agree that NPR is about the most liberal-leaning radio network in the USA. They can and do interview hardline republicans and other right wingers with a straight face, although (as conservatives never tire of pointing out), the bias in liberal media is most often biased at the editorial rather than correspondent level.
On the other hand, Conservatives and libertarians tend to favour the free market as the means to provide balance (even when it is not quite as free as the market pretends, as CR has consistently pointed out). They tend to laugh at or belittle caller they disagree with, cut them off halfway through, or deny them access altogether. The bias is both editorially- AND correspondent-based.
It's true that these practices make for good confrontational entertainment - which must be why so many "liberals" tune in. But while it is the free market when the only voices they air are editorially selected to make for the greatest possible amount of controversy, it isn't free speech.
But all this isn't really relevant to the particular case that inspired the debate question - the person reprimanded by the court was told off because they were using their radio platform to espouse their political platform as part of an election campaign. The free market has nothing to do with it - he was cheating the free market (and the electoral process) by using his position to cheat the opposition of their chance to get their message across. This guy wasn't buying the airtime for his platform (which would give the opponents the chance to compete, even if they failed). He didn't own the radio station (which would aslo have been open to competition). He was cheating. He got caught. Big deal. Who did he cheat? Not the opposition - the electorate. This whole issue is a right-wing stalking horse to allow them to consolidate their pre-existing stranglehold on the levers of power.
And they don't see anything wrong with that, because the ends justify the means, and if the liberals had any sense they would realise that the best way to compete would be to cheat harder than them - except when they do try that, suddenly that's venal corruption in high places and worthy of impeachment.
This isn't a fundamental archetype of the right wing in general, but it does seem to be a concept that the current crop of right wingers in the USA seem a little too comfortable with.
And yes, this is a right-wing-bashing rant. Being a liberal, I think it's only fair to have one on this thread, beacuse I think the whole thing is just a fabricated excuse for liberal bashing to deflect attention from a fellow traveller who's been caught in the wrong.
QUOTE(Julian @ Jul 21 2005, 04:26 AM)
On the other hand, Conservatives and libertarians tend to favour the free market as the means to provide balance (even when it is not quite as free as the market pretends, as CR has consistently pointed out). They tend to laugh at or belittle caller they disagree with, cut them off halfway through, or deny them access altogether. The bias is both editorially- AND correspondent-based.
You must not catch Air America much.........
QUOTE
And yes, this is a right-wing-bashing rant. Being a liberal, I think it's only fair to have one on this thread, beacuse I think the whole thing is just a fabricated excuse for liberal bashing to deflect attention from a fellow traveller who's been caught in the wrong.
I'm afraid I don't understand your last paragraph. You're far from being the lone liberal posting in this thread. If directed at me, show me where I've even come close to bashing liberals, especially in the vein of a 'left-wing bashing rant'. And which part of this is fabricated? The lawsuit brought forth by Seattle city attorneys? The I-912 Initiative? Or the premise for the thread, which if one wanted to deflect attention, one wouldn't have started a thread about it in the first place. If I wanted to bash liberals, I certainly would have picked a better topic, and done a better job of the bashing. As it is, without this thread, you would know nothing about this case at all. How is that deflecting attention?
Gosh darn evil right wingers, even daring to bring up the topic of free speech. Don't they know that liberals are the holy defenders of the faith when it comes to being able to say what you want in the public forum?
Well.....unless it's an idea they disagree with.....eh, so much for diversity........
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 20 2005, 10:42 PM)
Again I never said freedom is clear cut either, but they seemed to work with the fairness doctrine till Reagan vetoed it. Obviously it is skued to the republicans by not having it.
Are you seriously contending that before 1984 we had lots more information from both conservatives and liberals making it to the masses. That is the function of the media right - inform the public? With today's talk radio, cable / satellite TV and internet, according to you there is LESS information getting out there because we have repealed the fairness doctrine? Please elaborate.QUOTE(inventor)
I do not know if it will harm, but right now it is a disgrace that the USA is rated number 22 for free speech in the media. Again where the USA should never be second is freedom of our media.... I will guess republicans will not care or lose any sleep about that...
Source please?
Julian, your "right-wing-bashing rant" is funny when juxtaposed with the British government charging you £160 per year in part to deliver the BBC news (motto - one man's terrorist is another man's insurgent!) which by any measure is biased toward the left. Is Bill O'Reilly still in danger of being banned for his "unfair" reporting on Sky TV / Fox News? I'll take our free market over the UK system any day of the week.
QUOTE
carlitoswhey,Jul 21 2005, 07:30 AM]
Are you seriously contending that before 1984 we had lots more information from both conservatives and liberals making it to the masses. That is the function of the media right - inform the public? With today's talk radio, cable / satellite TV and internet, according to you there is LESS information getting out there because we have repealed the fairness doctrine? Please elaborate.
Are you seriously contending that before 1984 we had lots more information from both conservatives and liberals making it to the masses. That is the function of the media right - inform the public? With today's talk radio, cable / satellite TV and internet, according to you there is LESS information getting out there because we have repealed the fairness doctrine? Please elaborate.
I have no reason to believe we didn't. In fact I believe it has harmed us. Note that the republicans believe NPR is so biased so they yell and scream about just this one.
Here is another source that shows the FD was effective before.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html
QUOTE
The Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until 1987, when it was discontinued by the Federal Communications Commission, required broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views.
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).
The above showed it did have some sort of problem, issues. I do not know the specifics. But in my book it is so out of whack it is time to do something. Desperate times require desperate methods. As I said I am more in favor of 2 radio stations for dems and repubs, one for libertarians, one for green and one for militia members. That would be the fairness doctrine to me. It actually may even cause more parties to have some clout.The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).
Even the fairness doctrine was used on the tobacco industry. We did not need the tobacco lawsuits before. So this one alone shows how we had more information because there was money to put on the other side to the tobacco propaganda.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/home...on/Fairytal.htm
Also as I posted the corporations right now have notified networks if they run any negative segment on even their industry BP will pull all advertising.
QUOTE
QUOTE(inventor)
I do not know if it will harm, but right now it is a disgrace that the USA is rated number 22 for free speech in the media. Again where the USA should never be second is freedom of our media.... I will guess republicans will not care or lose any sleep about that...
Source please?
sorry thought I had posted it, it was in the tread right below this one "Is the media biased", post 65 on page 4, my point number 3 I posted in that thread and there have been no takers on that debate, it was a older thread.
.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=28527
Next...
To the replys that say free market will dictate it, here are examples where you are in cyberspace if you think that. We have a freemarket in the media? ha
If we were true free market;
1, do we allow cigarette advertising?,
2, do we allow liquor ads
3, do we allow sexual explicit ads
3, do we allow ads for prostitution. After all as you see I am from Nevada and it is legal here.
4, Ashcroft even covered up the in-decent lady liberty.
5, Bill Maher a libertarian was taken off the networks on a very successful show.
6, ABC backed out of distributing the M Moore movie.
7, The networks refused advertisements by liberal leaning organizations on the super bowl and other occasions. Their money was no good for some reason. Same with billboards.
8,we do not allow foreigners to own too much media. The rules were changed to allow a righty Australian Murdoch to own more and more.
9, the true liberals point of view is not getting out. How many people in the USA know that it is a lie by the rightys when they say the media is liberal. They do not know both sides do they.
Now onto someone’s point that the editorial is somehow liberal so that makes the media liberal. I have not read an editorial page in 20 years, I have a brain, I like data. How many Americans actually read one single editorial page written by Novak, et al.
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 21 2005, 12:01 PM)
If we were true free market;
1, do we allow cigarette advertising?,
2, do we allow liquor ads
3, do we allow sexual explicit ads
3, do we allow ads for prostitution. After all as you see I am from Nevada and it is legal here.
4, Ashcroft even covered up the in-decent lady liberty.
5, Bill Maher a libertarian was taken off the networks on a very successful show.
6, ABC backed out of distributing the M Moore movie.
7, The networks refused advertisements by liberal leaning organizations on the super bowl and other occasions. Their money was no good for some reason. Same with billboards.
8,we do not allow foreigners to own too much media. The rules were changed to allow a righty Australian Murdoch to own more and more.
9, the true liberals point of view is not getting out. How many people in the USA know that it is a lie by the rightys when they say the media is liberal. They do not know both sides do they.
1, do we allow cigarette advertising?,
2, do we allow liquor ads
3, do we allow sexual explicit ads
3, do we allow ads for prostitution. After all as you see I am from Nevada and it is legal here.
4, Ashcroft even covered up the in-decent lady liberty.
5, Bill Maher a libertarian was taken off the networks on a very successful show.
6, ABC backed out of distributing the M Moore movie.
7, The networks refused advertisements by liberal leaning organizations on the super bowl and other occasions. Their money was no good for some reason. Same with billboards.
8,we do not allow foreigners to own too much media. The rules were changed to allow a righty Australian Murdoch to own more and more.
9, the true liberals point of view is not getting out. How many people in the USA know that it is a lie by the rightys when they say the media is liberal. They do not know both sides do they.
No body is arguing we have a market totally free of government regulation. Nobody is arguing speech is not regulated. Once again, the primary purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect political speech. Of course, the Bill Maher action was market related. He was fired because he grossly offended a large sector of the viewing audience. So was ABC's action. Moore found another distributor. The networks have a right to turn down advertisers, once again the action was market driven. Foreign ownership seems unlikely to create a greater problem, in this arena, then domestic ownership. Point 9 is hilarious. That's your opinion. IMO, conservative talk radio balances out the rest of media which leans liberal, which is why liberals are so concerned with shutting down free speech on radio. They want to return to the good ole days where media was in the hands of the liberal elite.
QUOTE
Hugo,
No body is arguing we have a market totally free of government regulation.
It is more that you claim it is only market related... No body is arguing we have a market totally free of government regulation.
QUOTE
Once again, the primary purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect political speech.
That is why we had a fairness doctrine. because it was determined those who own the media have a extraordinary advantage. Do you think they just made it up for fun...QUOTE
Of course, the Bill Maher action was market related. He was fired because he grossly offended a large sector of the viewing audience.
Prove that... Why didn’t they pull of the air the two religious leaders that stated equally in my opinion stupid off the cuff statementsQUOTE
So was ABC's action.
Prove that. QUOTE
Moore found another distributor. advertisers, once again the action was market driven.
So much for free speech EVER; it isn't free when you do not own the media. $$$$ Yep we get to see those energy company and drug company ads that were political. QUOTE
Foreign ownership seems unlikely to create a greater problem, in this arena, then domestic ownership.
what are you talking about, people are having a tizzy right now that the Chinese were going to buy a gas station...... So are you saying it is OK if the Chinese buy all the media?QUOTE
Point 9 is hilarious. That's your opinion. IMO, conservative talk radio balances out the rest of media which leans liberal, which is why liberals are so concerned with shutting down free speech on radio. They want to return to the good ole days where media was in the hands of the liberal elite.
Ok lets be constructive, prove to me the media is so "liberal" I think we agree, talk radio one media is VERY biased to the right. After all AAR is only in 67 (adding three this week) markets and rush is in 600? Paul Harvey even more. and we can go down the list of hours of unbalanced time. That talk radio gets hours of time on the air.
I am not in favor of removing one right wing or religious show on the radio or any media and NO liberal I know is for doing that either, I do not know how you come up with such statements. I am for adding more from several perspectives. Please back that statement/mis-understanding up. I look at the more political persuasion point of views one can have out there the better a society is/will be, I think that pretty much sums up liberals which I can NOT say I have the right to speak for.
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 21 2005, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE
carlitoswhey,Jul 21 2005, 07:30 AM]
Are you seriously contending that before 1984 we had lots more information from both conservatives and liberals making it to the masses. That is the function of the media right - inform the public? With today's talk radio, cable / satellite TV and internet, according to you there is LESS information getting out there because we have repealed the fairness doctrine? Please elaborate.
Are you seriously contending that before 1984 we had lots more information from both conservatives and liberals making it to the masses. That is the function of the media right - inform the public? With today's talk radio, cable / satellite TV and internet, according to you there is LESS information getting out there because we have repealed the fairness doctrine? Please elaborate.
I have no reason to believe we didn't. In fact I believe it has harmed us. Note that the republicans believe NPR is so biased so they yell and scream about just this one.
In 1984, the vast majority of Americans got their news from ABC, NBC and CBS, plus the one or 2 newspapers in their town. In 2005, you, inventor, can not just read but publish a magazine. You can get your "liberal truth" out - start a blog today. In a country where the majority of poor people have cable or satellite tv, along with easy internet access, it is silly to say that there is less information getting to the public. The reason that Rush Limbaugh has 4 times the ratings of Al Franken is that 4 times as many people want to hear what he has to say. For the government to police his ideas is laughable.
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 21 2005, 01:54 PM)
I am not in favor of removing one right wing or religious show on the radio or any media and NO liberal I know is for doing that either, I do not know how you come up with such statements. I am for adding more from several perspectives.
So go ahead and add one. What the heck is stopping you?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 20 2005, 01:15 PM)
I would agree with you if it were A TRULY FREE MARKET- let us take every AD member on this board, and pool our combined resources and ability to leverage a very large amount of money to buy a high powered radio station to do nothing but put out our views- and we are unconcerned about even making money with advertisers or anything- we just want to be heard- THERE IS NO GUARUNTEE THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO BUY THAT STATION- because someone is controlling our access to those airwaves- so, our free speech is restricted before we even have an attempt to speak.
Regardles of who is "winning " the talk radio wars, unless the airwaves are TRULY FREE MARKET- your argument falls flat, because I can not just go and buy myself a radio station.
ONCE AGAIN, IF RADIO BECAME A TRULY FREE MARKET- I would totally agree with you- it is very similar to the pharmicist having to give certian drugs argument-
The goverment created a false class of entrepeneur, one that really exists quasi-outside the free market- not just anyone can sell pharmaceuticals, even if they are proven safe as recomended- the same with our airwaves- they are a false free market- because not just anyone with cash can buy one- and, until that is the case, there is no free market force to mass PUBLIC AIRWAVE media, whether it is TV or Radio.
Regardles of who is "winning " the talk radio wars, unless the airwaves are TRULY FREE MARKET- your argument falls flat, because I can not just go and buy myself a radio station.
ONCE AGAIN, IF RADIO BECAME A TRULY FREE MARKET- I would totally agree with you- it is very similar to the pharmicist having to give certian drugs argument-
The goverment created a false class of entrepeneur, one that really exists quasi-outside the free market- not just anyone can sell pharmaceuticals, even if they are proven safe as recomended- the same with our airwaves- they are a false free market- because not just anyone with cash can buy one- and, until that is the case, there is no free market force to mass PUBLIC AIRWAVE media, whether it is TV or Radio.
I can't buy myself an automobile company so I can build the car specifically to my design. Let me explain something here folks, all goods are scarce. Now some goods the government must regulate. In this case the government probably needs to regulate the airwaves to some degree. Though I have seen libertarian arguments that after initially selling the air rights government could remove themselves almost entirely from the scene.
Just because the government has the power to regulate does not give them the power to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet. Turn on talk radio, folks. Listen...do you hear people calling in and talking. Are those people owners of the radio station?Every single one of them? Once again, folks, it's the consumer that determines the content, just like they do at the bookstore and the newspaper stand and the video media.
Of course the fact I don't have the resources to own a radio station, don't mean I can't place an ad, or use an alternative method of getting my speech out.
The free market does not exclude individuals foregoing a profit. I don't know if William Lloyd Garrison's The Liberator ever made a profit . Of course, the free market is basically a theoretical concept. The best we can hope to do is get as close to a free market as possible. CR's unlibertarian stance is since we don't have a free market let's give government even more control.
Let me explain that free market does not mean that there are no barriers to entry, even that kid mowing the yard needs to acquire a lawnmower.
NO- mine is fair and balanced LOL 
- I would either like to see a TRUE free market, with only regulations for safety and for fraud (safety would be a free speech limitation that has withstood the test quite well- can't yell"fire" in a crowded movie house) OR if you are going to limit the markets ability to adjust- then there must be a fairness doctrine- I am that way with almost any issue Hugo- IF society it is going to regulate item "A" - then there needs to be checks and balances against abuse- if you have a truly free market- then the market truly decides market share.
If Hugo and CR can open a radio station with no more than buying a plot of airspace, unregulated as to ownership and power- then you have a free market.
Thinking that we have a free market in :
1) Pubic airwave media
2) Medicine
3) Resource extraction
is a fundamental mis-understanding of the businesses themselves.
SSSOOO- in any country that truly has a free and fair elections, and regulates thier public airwaves, they have equal time rules- because he who controls the media, controls the country- that is not so hard of a concept for anyone on this board- when a corporation, or four corporations, can control an entire media- then they can slant it however they like, and advertisers, many of whom may be a subsidary or vice versa, to have no choice but those markets to sell thier products.
Political speech on Radio HAS NOT been challenged here- Rush Limbaugh, AAR, and all the others are still on the air with no sanction for thier speech- WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A 30 MINUTE OR LONGER CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL- let us be realistic- this is it and everyone here should know it- no one really hides it even- it is a Ross Perot style produced "town hall" CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL-
Rush Limbaugh is a full blown Republican lapdog- obviously an outreach of that party- he certainly doesn't espouse the libertarian party or dem party now does he?- every single issue is a pro-republican issue. Only time he critisizes the repubs is when they don't support those issues.
BUT- he doesnt' do a whole show based on electing his local mayor- that would cross the line into commercial style infomercials- once again, Ross Perot paid for and did the same thing- but he did it under the auspices of a PAID CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL- he bought the air time, and claimed it as a campaign expense.
So the real question is- do you believe that there should be gratis campaign commercials sponsored by a corporate interest that may have a stake in that issue or election, but not even have to say it is involved?
Now- if Hugo and CR can go get a Loan, buy a 100,000 watt station, buy the actual bandwidth license (which could be, in libertarian terms, considered a type of real property, with all the bundle of rights involved, though definitions slightly modified)- and barring trespass on others property, or fraud, operate without regulation, then it would be a free and fair market and my radio station could live or fail based on my programming.
One of the reason there were limits on how many stations could be owned is the resources that station could use to stay on the air should poeple stop listening to it- if everyone hated this show, and I have 2 radio stations, all I am allowed to have, and any investors have to follow a set of guidelines (so it is not publically owned, public stock offerings could not be offered)- I could only operate that station for so long before I would go broke and have to sell-
But this station, corporately offered, could probably operate in the red indefinately without any harm befalling the corporation. So the customers could have no say at all in that area- it could be all propaganda, 24/7, all the time, and there would be no end to it, regardless if were losing money or not- because it has 30 other radio stations, only a little over half (hypothetically) making money.
So ya, if free market- ownership limited to "X" stations in any given market, anyone can buy one- I would disagree with this ruling- but corporate dominated, no, I am for making these guys declare this as what it is- a very long campaign commercial.
- I would either like to see a TRUE free market, with only regulations for safety and for fraud (safety would be a free speech limitation that has withstood the test quite well- can't yell"fire" in a crowded movie house) OR if you are going to limit the markets ability to adjust- then there must be a fairness doctrine- I am that way with almost any issue Hugo- IF society it is going to regulate item "A" - then there needs to be checks and balances against abuse- if you have a truly free market- then the market truly decides market share. If Hugo and CR can open a radio station with no more than buying a plot of airspace, unregulated as to ownership and power- then you have a free market.
Thinking that we have a free market in :
1) Pubic airwave media
2) Medicine
3) Resource extraction
is a fundamental mis-understanding of the businesses themselves.
SSSOOO- in any country that truly has a free and fair elections, and regulates thier public airwaves, they have equal time rules- because he who controls the media, controls the country- that is not so hard of a concept for anyone on this board- when a corporation, or four corporations, can control an entire media- then they can slant it however they like, and advertisers, many of whom may be a subsidary or vice versa, to have no choice but those markets to sell thier products.
Political speech on Radio HAS NOT been challenged here- Rush Limbaugh, AAR, and all the others are still on the air with no sanction for thier speech- WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A 30 MINUTE OR LONGER CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL- let us be realistic- this is it and everyone here should know it- no one really hides it even- it is a Ross Perot style produced "town hall" CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL-
Rush Limbaugh is a full blown Republican lapdog- obviously an outreach of that party- he certainly doesn't espouse the libertarian party or dem party now does he?- every single issue is a pro-republican issue. Only time he critisizes the repubs is when they don't support those issues.
BUT- he doesnt' do a whole show based on electing his local mayor- that would cross the line into commercial style infomercials- once again, Ross Perot paid for and did the same thing- but he did it under the auspices of a PAID CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL- he bought the air time, and claimed it as a campaign expense.
So the real question is- do you believe that there should be gratis campaign commercials sponsored by a corporate interest that may have a stake in that issue or election, but not even have to say it is involved?
Now- if Hugo and CR can go get a Loan, buy a 100,000 watt station, buy the actual bandwidth license (which could be, in libertarian terms, considered a type of real property, with all the bundle of rights involved, though definitions slightly modified)- and barring trespass on others property, or fraud, operate without regulation, then it would be a free and fair market and my radio station could live or fail based on my programming.
One of the reason there were limits on how many stations could be owned is the resources that station could use to stay on the air should poeple stop listening to it- if everyone hated this show, and I have 2 radio stations, all I am allowed to have, and any investors have to follow a set of guidelines (so it is not publically owned, public stock offerings could not be offered)- I could only operate that station for so long before I would go broke and have to sell-
But this station, corporately offered, could probably operate in the red indefinately without any harm befalling the corporation. So the customers could have no say at all in that area- it could be all propaganda, 24/7, all the time, and there would be no end to it, regardless if were losing money or not- because it has 30 other radio stations, only a little over half (hypothetically) making money.
So ya, if free market- ownership limited to "X" stations in any given market, anyone can buy one- I would disagree with this ruling- but corporate dominated, no, I am for making these guys declare this as what it is- a very long campaign commercial.
Once again, folks, a free market is basically a theoretical concept. Free marketeers, such as myself, attempt to get as close as you can to a free market. No where in the 1st Amendment does it say political speech must be either fair or balanced. That is a modern liberal, as opposed to classical liberal, concept. Rush Limbaugh is on the air because people listen to him. Mario Cuomo is off the air because people did not. Star Wars is in the theatres because people buy tickets to it. Justin meets Kelly took a quick dive...I doubt there will be a sequel. I believe both the Clinton's had bestsellers last year, not sure if there were Republican bios to "fairly balance" the Clinton bio's. Michael Jackson got a lot of attention last year. Not sure if there was a white woman who turned herself into a black guy who got enough media attention to "fairly balance" the racial/gender mysogyny politics.
Nor does free speech mean someone must allow you to use their assets to speak freely. It means government should seldom intrude on your speech.
Our government also regulates certain standards in the print media. Child porn is certainly not allowed. Do we have to insure that for every Chomsky book published there is a Rothbard? Got news for you, folks, life ain't fair, or balanced, and whenever government tries to make it so the result is the loss of individual liberty.
If you are asking if a corporation should be allowed to exercise their free speech and property rights to campaign for political positions and candidates the answer is yes. It is quite sad the attacks on the Constitution we allow under the guise of attacking the corporate boogeyman.
Attacking the corporation is nothing more than the latest Marxist subterfuge. They got nowhere attacking capitalism so they switched to attacking the engine of capitalism.
Can you provide an example here? I mean please give an example of a station that is intentionally non-profit in order to espouse corporate propaganda? Sorry, I used to manage a business location. I could not tell my boss "Well, gee sir, your other locations are making money..don't see why I have to also." If I had he probably would have responded with something like "You're fired."
Of course the propaganda better be somewhat entertaining or no one is going to listen to it.
Nor does free speech mean someone must allow you to use their assets to speak freely. It means government should seldom intrude on your speech.
Our government also regulates certain standards in the print media. Child porn is certainly not allowed. Do we have to insure that for every Chomsky book published there is a Rothbard? Got news for you, folks, life ain't fair, or balanced, and whenever government tries to make it so the result is the loss of individual liberty.
QUOTE
So the real question is- do you believe that there should be gratis campaign commercials sponsored by a corporate interest that may have a stake in that issue or election, but not even have to say it is involved?
If you are asking if a corporation should be allowed to exercise their free speech and property rights to campaign for political positions and candidates the answer is yes. It is quite sad the attacks on the Constitution we allow under the guise of attacking the corporate boogeyman.
Attacking the corporation is nothing more than the latest Marxist subterfuge. They got nowhere attacking capitalism so they switched to attacking the engine of capitalism.
QUOTE
But this station, corporately offered, could probably operate in the red indefinately without any harm befalling the corporation. So the customers could have no say at all in that area- it could be all propaganda, 24/7, all the time, and there would be no end to it, regardless if were losing money or not- because it has 30 other radio stations, only a little over half (hypothetically) making money.
Can you provide an example here? I mean please give an example of a station that is intentionally non-profit in order to espouse corporate propaganda? Sorry, I used to manage a business location. I could not tell my boss "Well, gee sir, your other locations are making money..don't see why I have to also." If I had he probably would have responded with something like "You're fired."
Of course the propaganda better be somewhat entertaining or no one is going to listen to it.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Jul 21 2005, 05:36 PM)
QUOTE
But this station, corporately offered, could probably operate in the red indefinately without any harm befalling the corporation. So the customers could have no say at all in that area- it could be all propaganda, 24/7, all the time, and there would be no end to it, regardless if were losing money or not- because it has 30 other radio stations, only a little over half (hypothetically) making money.
Can you provide an example here? I mean please give an example of a station that is intentionally non-profit in order to espouse corporate propaganda? Sorry, I used to manage a business location. I could not tell my boss "Well, gee sir, your other locations are making money..don't see why I have to also." If I had he probably would have responded with something like "You're fired."
Actually, the example in this case would be Air America. They have low ratings and must be losing money hand over fist, but plan to operate anyway, because they have wealthy backers. (radio 101 - easy way to tell if your station has no ratings - when every other commercial is a public service announcement, they have a problem) Someone like George Soros could simply keep them afloat with his largesse.
CruisingRam, your example (a multi-station network using one signal for political propaganda) would never ever happen in the world of corporate-owned radio. Publicly-traded companies cannot take a valuable asset (a radio frequency) and use it for propaganda or whatever. Unless people wanted to listen to their propaganda 24/7, allowing them ratings and advertising revenue, it would never last. Laws of economics. You have no idea what earnings pressure a local radio station is under.
The only other example I can think of which is close is Rupert Murdoch. On SkyTV in the UK, there is a China "news" channel which is basically Chinese propaganda. I don't know this for certain, but when I saw it I imagined that NewsCorp must have negotiated to put China "Star TV" on his satellite systems, in return for rights to operate in China.
carlitoswhey,
Is getting opposing information to a free society or is owning and controlling the delivery system more important. Is being number 22 in press freedom a good thing?
I also posted a link to the military and their position of how consolidation of the media is a danger to society. all should read it.
QUOTE
Can you provide an example here? I mean please give an example of a station that is intentionally non-profit in order to espouse corporate propaganda? Sorry, I used to manage a business location. I could not tell my boss "Well, gee sir, your other locations are making money..don't see why I have to also." If I had he probably would have responded with something like "You're fired."
I am repeating myself but here I will give you the perfect example "THE WASHINGTON TIMES" yes Rev Son Yong Moon, with the moonies, he is Korean and a big favorite with the right wing, read "Blinded by The Right" written by a republican at that time. It has been alleged that he has been running that paper at a loss. He will not release his information. QUOTE
Actually, the example in this case would be Air America. They have low ratings and must be losing money hand over fist, but plan to operate anyway, because they have wealthy backers. (radio 101 - easy way to tell if your station has no ratings - when every other commercial is a public service announcement, they have a problem) Someone like George Soros could simply keep them afloat with his largesse.
I posted information on this subject, Fox ran in the red for 3 years. And AAR in one market went from the bottom 10 percent to the top percent in the first rating period in one market. Actually beating Rush's rating in ONE period, That has to be a record how in the very first rating period can someone beat a established program near the top. That was in Portland. And Yes Fox had a a very rich righty backing them didn't they. QUOTE
CruisingRam, your example (a multi-station network using one signal for political propaganda) would never ever happen in the world of corporate-owned radio. Publicly-traded companies cannot take a valuable asset (a radio frequency) and use it for propaganda or whatever. Unless people wanted to listen to their propaganda 24/7, allowing them ratings and advertising revenue, it would never last. Laws of economics. You have no idea what earnings pressure a local radio station is under.
Can we play jeopardy, what is C-Span? QUOTE
The only other example I can think of which is close is Rupert Murdoch. On SkyTV in the UK, there is a China "news" channel which is basically Chinese propaganda. I don't know this for certain, but when I saw it I imagined that NewsCorp must have negotiated to put China "Star TV" on his satellite systems, in return for rights to operate in China.
I can think of another losing station, the CIA a year or so ago open up a station based outside of DC for 62 million tax payer dollars. It is the new arab network not for here but the ME. They do not care if they make money with it. Again control of the message is that important. Also if you remember we used tax payer money for radio free america, the experts completely disagree with you, they believe control of the delivery system is important even if it is losing money. Is getting opposing information to a free society or is owning and controlling the delivery system more important. Is being number 22 in press freedom a good thing?
I also posted a link to the military and their position of how consolidation of the media is a danger to society. all should read it.
inventor - it is belittling to ask if others have actually read your posts, which is against the Rules. Let's focus on the debate questions in a civil, constructive fashion.
TOPICS:
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine?
Will this ruling, though local, have dire consequences for any political speech in the media by either side of the political spectrum?
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law?
TOPICS:
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine?
Will this ruling, though local, have dire consequences for any political speech in the media by either side of the political spectrum?
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law?
Can public speech, made by pundits and observers whose job entails giving opinion and commentary, be subjected to spending limits, or curtailed in some sort of unofficial fairness doctrine? Don't we have the best democracy money can buy?????? Absolutely we need to do it, Another example was Hearst, he bought the SF paper to make sure he got elected. In Thailand the ruling prime minister purchased the newspaper that was critical of him and fired the reporter. This is just human nature. Not free market at its best.
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2086.cfm
here is what one rich guy did with his money, he participated in media exactly as we are talking about, he did not care about losing spending 380 million dollars. He made sure his pundits were getting media time unanswered. He funded getting these pundits on air and in the media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/p....html?th&emc=th
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law? The naysayers or ones in denial that it is a lobsided game of media ownership I have to ask this question... If there is not a problem with spending and ownership of the media WHY did we even try campaign finance refornm, what was the purpose of it. Was it because money buys influence? why is that bad when owning media is the same thing. can you differentiate the two for me from your perspective.
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2086.cfm
QUOTE
“The censorship practiced by corporate-controlled media has helped them build entire “news” networks upon great lies-that coverage is “fair and balanced,” that it should be “trusted,” or, perhaps the greatest lie of all, that the drivel disseminated deserves to qualify as “news.””
here is what one rich guy did with his money, he participated in media exactly as we are talking about, he did not care about losing spending 380 million dollars. He made sure his pundits were getting media time unanswered. He funded getting these pundits on air and in the media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/p....html?th&emc=th
QUOTE
Goals Reached, Donor on Right Closes Up Shop
By JASON DePARLE
Published: May 29, 2005
Mr. Olin and his wife, Evelyn, gave the foundation about $145 million; riding two bull markets since his death in 1982, it has given out about $380 million. About $6 million is left and will be awarded before the doors of its office in New York close in November.
By JASON DePARLE
Published: May 29, 2005
Mr. Olin and his wife, Evelyn, gave the foundation about $145 million; riding two bull markets since his death in 1982, it has given out about $380 million. About $6 million is left and will be awarded before the doors of its office in New York close in November.
Is this a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of the Campaign Finance Reform law? The naysayers or ones in denial that it is a lobsided game of media ownership I have to ask this question... If there is not a problem with spending and ownership of the media WHY did we even try campaign finance refornm, what was the purpose of it. Was it because money buys influence? why is that bad when owning media is the same thing. can you differentiate the two for me from your perspective.
The bottom line concerning the Fairness Doctrine is this. If talk radio was not dominated by conservative pundits and commentators, liberals like Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey, D-NY, would not be proposing a revival of the doctrine to, in his words: "protect diversity of view."
However, when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, there was no such animal as political talk radio. Radio station owners and programmers across the spectrum saw correctly, that there was no value, to the stockholders or the listeners, to limit debate of one side or the other and put on programs at their expense, even if there were no listeners. The current, utterly immense choice and diversity of media outlets in print, TV, radio, internet and podcasting negates any need for state imposed media programming.
In 1974, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), though not ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the USSC did conclude that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate".
In 1984, the same USSC ruled in FCC v. League of Women Voters (468 U.S. 364), "that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate."
Inventor, I'm not coming at this debate from a partisan "liberal media" angle, as you are with your repetitious use of 'rightys'. I'm coming at this from the position that a fairness doctrine, whether reinstated by congress or unofficially instituted by judges, is an affront to freedom. Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms both voted for failed attempts at reinstating the doctrine. I think they were wrong.
I can look objectively at media ownership rules, and don't really like the monopolization of outlets, but ultimately I have to side with the market, consumer demand and the 1st Amendment.
I was overjoyed at the emergence of Air America, and look forward to Gore's *ahem* non-partisan TV network to be carried on DishTV, because entities like these undermine the attempts by some liberals to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
All the Fairness Doctrine accomplished was that radio stations never covered anything controversial, and bear in mind that if it were to come back, so would that mindset, because we both know that both major parties would fling lawsuits one after the other in yet another arena of political warfare. Nothing like tying the courts down with specious arguments over speech that should be free anyway. Mario Cuomo, well known for not being conservative said that he"never understood the distinction made between electronic and print media in terms of the reasons for the first amendment . . . and the basic rationale for freedom of speech." Link
Radio broadcaster Adrian Cronauer, made famous with the movie Good Morning Vietnam says: "The Fairness Doctrine discourages, rather than encourages, imaginative, informative programming where minority views are aired, because it enhances the possibility that the Fairness Doctrine might be invoked by those who disagree with the program. Since that will require broadcasters to absorb costs for litigation and loss of commercial time to show alternative views, the pragmatic strategy for a broadcast manager is to avoid controversial views."
Link
And lastly, the most important quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
– First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Just because the state regulates the public airwaves to guarantee a station's right to broadcast on a certain frequency at a prescribed wattage, the Constitution does not give the state the right to dictate what the citizenry wishes or is forced to listen to. People here are speaking of the tyranny of media conglomerates, but only wish to see it replaced by the tyranny of government.
This shouldn't ever become a partisan issue, though both major parties are known for abusing it, this issue transcends parties and goes to the core of the freedoms we profess to believe in.
However, when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, there was no such animal as political talk radio. Radio station owners and programmers across the spectrum saw correctly, that there was no value, to the stockholders or the listeners, to limit debate of one side or the other and put on programs at their expense, even if there were no listeners. The current, utterly immense choice and diversity of media outlets in print, TV, radio, internet and podcasting negates any need for state imposed media programming.
In 1974, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), though not ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the USSC did conclude that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate".
In 1984, the same USSC ruled in FCC v. League of Women Voters (468 U.S. 364), "that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate."
Inventor, I'm not coming at this debate from a partisan "liberal media" angle, as you are with your repetitious use of 'rightys'. I'm coming at this from the position that a fairness doctrine, whether reinstated by congress or unofficially instituted by judges, is an affront to freedom. Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms both voted for failed attempts at reinstating the doctrine. I think they were wrong.
I can look objectively at media ownership rules, and don't really like the monopolization of outlets, but ultimately I have to side with the market, consumer demand and the 1st Amendment.
I was overjoyed at the emergence of Air America, and look forward to Gore's *ahem* non-partisan TV network to be carried on DishTV, because entities like these undermine the attempts by some liberals to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
All the Fairness Doctrine accomplished was that radio stations never covered anything controversial, and bear in mind that if it were to come back, so would that mindset, because we both know that both major parties would fling lawsuits one after the other in yet another arena of political warfare. Nothing like tying the courts down with specious arguments over speech that should be free anyway. Mario Cuomo, well known for not being conservative said that he"never understood the distinction made between electronic and print media in terms of the reasons for the first amendment . . . and the basic rationale for freedom of speech." Link
Radio broadcaster Adrian Cronauer, made famous with the movie Good Morning Vietnam says: "The Fairness Doctrine discourages, rather than encourages, imaginative, informative programming where minority views are aired, because it enhances the possibility that the Fairness Doctrine might be invoked by those who disagree with the program. Since that will require broadcasters to absorb costs for litigation and loss of commercial time to show alternative views, the pragmatic strategy for a broadcast manager is to avoid controversial views."
Link
And lastly, the most important quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
– First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Just because the state regulates the public airwaves to guarantee a station's right to broadcast on a certain frequency at a prescribed wattage, the Constitution does not give the state the right to dictate what the citizenry wishes or is forced to listen to. People here are speaking of the tyranny of media conglomerates, but only wish to see it replaced by the tyranny of government.
This shouldn't ever become a partisan issue, though both major parties are known for abusing it, this issue transcends parties and goes to the core of the freedoms we profess to believe in.
Just to confirm this is not a left/right issue. Well, at least not until the left started losing the ratings game. The case that began the downfall of the fairness doctrine.
I don't consider Pacifica and the League of Women Voters righties. Does anyone else?
QUOTE
U.S. Supreme Court
FCC v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)
468 U.S. 364
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
No. 82-912.
Argued January 16, 1984
Decided July 2, 1984
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (Act) established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a nonprofit corporation, to disburse federal funds to noncommercial television and radio stations in support of station operations and educational programming. Section 399 of the Act forbids any noncommercial educational station that receives a grant from the CPB to "engage in editorializing." Appellees (Pacifica Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that owns and operates several noncommercial educational broadcasting stations that receive grants from the CPB, the League of Women Voters of California, and an individual listener and viewer of public broadcasting) brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of 399. The District Court granted summary judgment in appellees' favor, holding that 399 violates the First Amendment.
FCC v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)
468 U.S. 364
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
No. 82-912.
Argued January 16, 1984
Decided July 2, 1984
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (Act) established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a nonprofit corporation, to disburse federal funds to noncommercial television and radio stations in support of station operations and educational programming. Section 399 of the Act forbids any noncommercial educational station that receives a grant from the CPB to "engage in editorializing." Appellees (Pacifica Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that owns and operates several noncommercial educational broadcasting stations that receive grants from the CPB, the League of Women Voters of California, and an individual listener and viewer of public broadcasting) brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of 399. The District Court granted summary judgment in appellees' favor, holding that 399 violates the First Amendment.
I don't consider Pacifica and the League of Women Voters righties. Does anyone else?
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 21 2005, 11:01 AM)
Here is another source that shows the FD was effective before.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html
QUOTE
The Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until 1987, when it was discontinued by the Federal Communications Commission, required broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views.
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).
OK I am quoting my post 33 as a reference that we all three seem to have different interpretations of what I cited with a link.
Yes I have backed up my so called claims with links of what a few of them have done to control the media. Add to that another righty Richard Mellon Scaife (owner of the Pittsburg paper, he inherited his money ( like Olin) and Scaife funded most of the Paula Jones lawsuit, as well as her nose job, many books and funded the media like National Review, read Blinded by The Right") Add another person from nevada, Howard Hughes was another defense contractor CIA fanatic that was into buying the media, read a book on him and he had a hizzy when Kennedy was elected because he had with his money been able to buy media literally and figuratively to get who ever he wanted elected. He fired many people when this happened. He was at the time one of the US's richest men.