Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

tico said

Quote:

So you think there ought to be a law forcing radio stations to carry Air America, or some other leftist radio show, to balance out if they are carrying Rush or Hannity?

More properly stated, I would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine (thanks, george). The rationale, if it isn't obvious, is to promote maximal diversity of political opinion in the community. Therefore, a consequence would be Air America including roughly equal time for your viewpoint as well.

0 Replies

george

If I have time tonight, I'll get some info for you on the repeal of the FD.

The electronic revolution has altered the media landscape and I'm not sure how best to set about implementing policies/legislation to push things in the direction of maximal information dissemination presently. That needs some research, for sure.

But just as a simple example of the principle properly applied, I can point to PBS Newshour. Multiple viewpoints are the policy. John Yoo, for example, has been appearing there for nearly a decade. Prior to David Brooks as guest each friday night, Paul Gigot filled that slot.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

tico said
Quote:
So you think there ought to be a law forcing radio stations to carry Air America, or some other leftist radio show, to balance out if they are carrying Rush or Hannity?

More properly stated, I would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine (thanks, george). The rationale, if it isn't obvious, is to promote maximal diversity of political opinion in the community. Therefore, a consequence would be Air America including roughly equal time for your viewpoint as well.

That would have a chilling effect on talk radio, something I quite understand you would support. The consequence would be fewer talk radio programs, not greater.

Does your viewpoint extend to newspapers as well? Ought the NYT be forced to provide equal space in its editorial pages for conservative opinions?

0 Replies

What do you think about what Ingraham did on her radio show, Tico?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:
tico said
Quote:
So you think there ought to be a law forcing radio stations to carry Air America, or some other leftist radio show, to balance out if they are carrying Rush or Hannity?

More properly stated, I would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine (thanks, george). The rationale, if it isn't obvious, is to promote maximal diversity of political opinion in the community. Therefore, a consequence would be Air America including roughly equal time for your viewpoint as well.

That would have a chilling effect on talk radio, something I quite understand you would support. The consequence would be fewer talk radio programs, not greater.

Does your viewpoint extend to newspapers as well? Ought the NYT be forced to provide equal space in its editorial pages for conservative opinions?

Why would a chilling effect follow? Who or what would be chilled and why?
There's a substantial period of time where the FD was in place. Do you have any grasp of the situation in that period of time?

Why would there be fewer talk radio shows? How would that happen?

Does the number of talk radio shows show a correspondence with diversity of viewpoint? Would 500 air americas look good to you?

From a regulation viewpoint, is market demand the sole proper determinant of what the air waves ought to carry? What about pornography? Snuff films? What establishes the proper area or limit of government interference?

Ought there to be any limits on media ownership/monopolies? why?

As to the difference between broadcast media and papers...

Quote:

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Therefore, a consequence would be Air America including roughly equal time for your viewpoint as well.

But what if I, the listener, don't want to be fair? What if I don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh as often as to Al Franken? What if I don't want to digest Discovery Institute sludge equally often as Richard Dawkins? And what if many people agreed with me, if we threw Limbaugh and the Discovery Institute out the marketplace of ideas?

It insults my intelligence that a government agency should enforce equal treatment for views that I don't think deserve it. And mutatis mutandis, this means we shouldn't have an agency enforcing equal treatment for any two viewpoints.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george

The electronic revolution has altered the media landscape and I'm not sure how best to set about implementing policies/legislation to push things in the direction of maximal information dissemination presently. That needs some research, for sure.

But just as a simple example of the principle properly applied, I can point to PBS Newshour. Multiple viewpoints are the policy. John Yoo, for example, has been appearing there for nearly a decade. Prior to David Brooks as guest each friday night, Paul Gigot filled that slot.

I fear the task of government enforcement either fairness or objectivity in information dissemination is hopeless. I agree the unregulated situation we have today hardly meets the standards we would like to see, but at least it involves a degree of freedom for purveyors and buyers in that marketplaace.

The only foundation for the earlier fairness Doctrine was the government monopoly on organizing tennancy of the frequency spectrum - a necessity to prevent chaos. Absent that the Constitution provides no power to any branch of the government to so regulate speech, The ascent of unregulated cable media, which entirely bypass the radio frequency spectrum, confronted the government with the potential for contradiction between regulated and unregulatefd media, and therefore no prospect of "fairness" at all. I believe this is what brought the end to the Fairness Doctrine.

PBS and the radio equivalent NPR operate on the fiction that they are independent corporations totally outside the control of the government that finances them. I agree PBS does fairly well with meaningful and balanced content. NPR, however, is another matter. I used to listen to the news and "All Things Considered" while communing home from the office. It was about as unbiased as the "Talk of the Town" column in the New Yorker magazine.

0 Replies

It's basic "freedom of speech" issue.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

What do you think about what Ingraham did on her radio show, Tico?

What did Ingraham do on her radio show?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
tico said
Quote:
So you think there ought to be a law forcing radio stations to carry Air America, or some other leftist radio show, to balance out if they are carrying Rush or Hannity?

More properly stated, I would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine (thanks, george). The rationale, if it isn't obvious, is to promote maximal diversity of political opinion in the community. Therefore, a consequence would be Air America including roughly equal time for your viewpoint as well.

That would have a chilling effect on talk radio, something I quite understand you would support. The consequence would be fewer talk radio programs, not greater.

Does your viewpoint extend to newspapers as well? Ought the NYT be forced to provide equal space in its editorial pages for conservative opinions?

Why would a chilling effect follow? Who or what would be chilled and why?

Because of the effect it would have on radio broadcasters, fearful of the application of the doctrine, and therefore choosing to not broadcast any political viewpoints entirely, with a net reduction in the broadcasting of any political opinion via the radio. After all, who is going to police the rule? Who is to say what is satisfactory, and what is not?

Quote:

There's a substantial period of time where the FD was in place. Do you have any grasp of the situation in that period of time?

Yes. Do you have a grasp of the situation that lead to the discontinuation of the policy?

Quote:

Why would there be fewer talk radio shows? How would that happen?

See above.

Quote:

Does the number of talk radio shows show a correspondence with diversity of viewpoint? Would 500 air americas look good to you?

I believe the marketplace ought to drive this, not the government. If liberal talk radio cannot survive on its own, why should it survive at all? After all, you leftists still have the majority of the newspapers.

Quote:

From a regulation viewpoint, is market demand the sole proper determinant of what the air waves ought to carry? What about pornography? Snuff films? What establishes the proper area or limit of government interference?

Lofty questions, blatham, well beyond the scope of the issue we're discussing -- whether a company ought to be able to determine where to spend its advertising dollar. I don't have a problem with limitations on the broadcasting of pornography or snuff films. Do you?

Quote:

Ought there to be any limits on media ownership/monopolies? why?

To a very limited degree, because the broadcast market is finite. But because of the increasing number of broadcasters in the market, it isn't possible to monopolize the market today. How many channels do you have on your TV? How many stations on your radio dial?

Quote:

As to the difference between broadcast media and papers...
Quote:
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

So you do not think newspapers (overwhelmingly liberal) ought to be fair, just radio talk shows (overwhelmingly conservative). How convenient.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's basic "freedom of speech" issue.

So you are against the "Fairness Doctrine" because of the chilling effect it has on free speech?

0 Replies

Quote:

John Amato:
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that "I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried", essentially admitting that he has been lying to his audience all along.

Olbermann was quick to catch onto this:

Video available at,

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[Audio - MP3 also available at the same URL as is a link to the Limbaugh transcript.]

Limbaugh admits that he's been a shill for the GOP and he feels relief that he no longer has to do so. One would think that he'd feel some relief at not having to lie, but that's not an issue for Rush.

Lying comes so easily to these people. This is the same thing I've described in these threads time after time, what Blatham is trying and has been trying to illustrate, what numerous others have been pointing out for years.

The water carriers, those who have provided disception after disception, smoke and mirrors [a tico favorite] and outright lies to provide support.

To them it's not about what's truthful, honest or moral, it's about manipulating events and people, providing support for the nefarious scoundrels that have recently be sent packing and the ones that still need to be ejected.

0 Replies

Just what I was talking about.

Quote:

Republicans = Scientologists

Bill Maher

One of the tenets of Scientology is that anyone who criticizes the religion is fair game for any and all kinds of retribution. You can file lawsuits against them, you can harass them, you can spread lies about them, and it's OK because the critic is fundamentally evil.

This is the same reason Republicans have no problem running push polls, or handing out leaflets with false accusations, or calling Dems and telling them that their polling place has been changed... all this dishonest, sleazy stuff is OK because it's in the service of a greater good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/republicans-scientologi_b_33764.html

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

snood wrote:
What do you think about what Ingraham did on her radio show, Tico?

What did Ingraham do on her radio show?

I really don't think you're this uninformed or ignorant, but...

During the voting, she was urging her listeners to call and jam up the Democratic voter assistance lines.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/ingraham-voter-line/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611070019

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/11/07/gop_hypocrite_laura_ingraham_has_the_gall_to_advise_candidates_on_principles.php

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
What do you think about what Ingraham did on her radio show, Tico?

What did Ingraham do on her radio show?

I really don't think you're this uninformed or ignorant, but...

During the voting, she was urging her listeners to call and jam up the Democratic voter assistance lines.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/ingraham-voter-line/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611070019

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/11/07/gop_hypocrite_laura_ingraham_has_the_gall_to_advise_candidates_on_principles.php

First time I've heard of it.

You might be surprised to find out I don't read thinkprogress, mediamatters, and newshounds regularly. So, yes, I may very well be ignorant of much of the leftist news-of-the-day.

Okay, I read your links. Am I supposed to be outraged? I'm not. Are you outraged? Get a grip.

What do you think of what Rush did on his radio show?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

snood wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
What do you think about what Ingraham did on her radio show, Tico?

What did Ingraham do on her radio show?

I really don't think you're this uninformed or ignorant, but...

During the voting, she was urging her listeners to call and jam up the Democratic voter assistance lines.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/ingraham-voter-line/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611070019

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/11/07/gop_hypocrite_laura_ingraham_has_the_gall_to_advise_candidates_on_principles.php

First time I've heard of it.

You might be surprised to find out I don't read thinkprogress, mediamatters, and newshounds regularly. So, yes, I may very well be ignorant of much of the leftist news-of-the-day.

Okay, I read your links. Am I supposed to be outraged? I'm not. Are you outraged? Get a grip.

What do you think of what Rush did on his radio show?

So, "not outraged" is about how far you wanna commit here, huh? Laughing

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So, "not outraged" is about how far you wanna commit here, huh?

No, I'd go so far as to say I was apathetic about it.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

snood wrote:
So, "not outraged" is about how far you wanna commit here, huh?

No, I'd go so far as to say I was apathetic about it.

'kay. Bear with me for just a sec, please...

Just curious - is it that you're apathetic about a rightwing pundit attempting this kind of voter diversion, or that you're apathetic about pundits in general, or you're apathetic because it was me who brought it up, or you are apathetic about it because the republicans lost, or

just why exactly don't you care about something like someone attempting to thwart voters on election day?

If it was a leftwing pundit would you care?

If it was reported on Fox, would it matter to you?

Hate to be a nudge, but why exactly don't you care about something like this? It seems to me that if someone cares about the democratic process, this would concern them.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
So, "not outraged" is about how far you wanna commit here, huh?

No, I'd go so far as to say I was apathetic about it.

'kay. Bear with me for just a sec, please...

Just curious - is it that you're apathetic about a rightwing pundit attempting this kind of voter diversion, or that you're apathetic about pundits in general, or you're apathetic because it was me who brought it up, or you are apathetic about it because the republicans lost, or

just why exactly don't you care about something like someone attempting to thwart voters on election day?

"Voter diversion"? "Thwart voters on election day"? How much of the koolaid have you had, snood?

I saw nothing that involved "thwarting" voters. The DNC's 1-888-dem-vote line hung up on her, and she had some fun with it. Did you listen to that part of it? Who's vote was thwarted? Who's vote was diverted? Was anyone "disenfranchised" because of her actions? With all due respect, this seems to me to be just another example of a bunch of libs making a mountain out of a mole hill, and getting their panties in a bunch because of something a conservative radio host said.

But if you think she violated the law, I urge you to contact the FEC and complain.

Quote:

If it was a leftwing pundit would you care?

No.

Quote:

If it was reported on Fox, would it matter to you?

No.

Quote:

Hate to be a nudge, but why exactly don't you care about something like this? It seems to me that if someone cares about the democratic process, this would concern them.

I don't see this impairing the "democratic process" one little bit.

But the thinkprogress.org comments are amusing. It appears you guys almost hate her as much as you do Coulter.

0 Replies

'preciate the candor. nitey night.

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know