McGentrix wrote:blatham wrote:Bush as political philosopher...I've always loved him in this role...
Quote:"We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don't agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don't acknowledge that you are the balance
The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we're strengthened by diversity of opinions."
"If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
There's a good possibility something like the FD might again come up the pike. You chaps will piss about it and repeat the cliches that Bush repeats above rather than go to the trouble of getting yourselves educated. Pity, because you're hurting yourselves, your families and your neighbors.
How so? You agree with the fairness doctrine? Why?
This has been discussed previously on many occasions.
The ideal is, as most of us would have it and as Bush states above, maximal diversity of opinion. I don't believe he really wishes that at all, but that is another matter.
The claim that the goal of legislation similar to the FD would be to "silence" rightwing voices is false. Bush repeats this either because he is stupid and believes it or because he is just continuing a propagandist message, or a propagandist lie if we are honest about it. The previous period where FD was in effect didn't demonstrate such an effect from that legislation. No one was silenced. So the claim is deceitful.
The difficulties regarding how we might word such legislation or how we might implement it are really where the problems seem to sit. But there's nothing inherently wrong with legislation in this area unless one takes an absolutist stance. But that doesn't work if only because the FCC presently has legislation which directs and limits aspects of such communications media, so such absolutes are not the case now.
But more to the point, what we seek to avoid (in moving to the ideal of maximal diversity) is dominance and monopoly. No one (sane) wants George Soros or Rupert Murdoch or GE to buy up all the major networks because we know what the result would surely be. Or one could imagine moveon.org or someone else like them getting lucky in the stock market and taking over Clear Channel and then going on to purchase other AM radio stations.
So, we can move to ensure diversity through limiting how much media a single entity can own. And/or we can move to ensure diversity through legislation similar to FD.
