DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: richpo64 on November 20, 2008, 07:29:24 PM

Title: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: richpo64 on November 20, 2008, 07:29:24 PM

Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
by Jack Thompson (more by this author)
Posted 11/20/2008 ET
Updated 11/20/2008 ET
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566)


Get ready for an unprecedented government assault upon the First Amendment. President Obama will be at the heart of it. using his version of the “Fairness Doctrine”.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission created the “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated that federally-licensed radio and television stations “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints” on “vitally important controversial issues.” Rather than be deluged with demands for air time by aggrieved listeners, the broadcasters generally opted not to cover controversial issues, thereby leaving the public less informed.

In 1987, President Reagan’s FCC jettisoned the Fairness Doctrine, and conservative talk radio grew like topsy, unencumbered by the logistical nightmare of determining what is “controversial” and what is “fair.” Rush Limbaugh’s meteoric, syndicated rise is directly attributable to this repeal, as radio stations were freed to air what listeners wanted to hear without airing what few wanted to hear. If you think that’s unfair, check out how Air America is doing.

Limbaugh even today correctly says, “Don’t me ask for equal time; I am equal time. I am the rebuttal to the liberal, mainstream, drive-by media.”

With the Democrats now set to control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid say they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio’s criticism of the Democrats.

Barack Obama, however, in June 2008, , stated that he opposes bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, through his Press Secretary Michael Ortiz: “He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.” [emphasis added]

Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response from listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, and other conservative talk hosts who would be dropped rapidly from many if not all stations. Glenn Beck has warned that if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, he’ll be off the air.

Obama is way smarter than that. What he has in mind is an indirect and far more means to accomplish the demise of conservative talk -- America’s last town hall. The analogy is to the proverbial frog in the pot of water. Put him into boiling water, and out he’ll hop. Instant Boston Tea Party. Here, then, is the Obama plan to slow cook the First Amendment:

Charles Benton is Chairman of the Benton Foundation, with offices in Obama’s Chicago as well as in Obama’s Washington. Benton proclaims at his Foundation’s web site, “

• ur number one national communications policy priority must be the eradication of racial and gender discrimination in media and telecommunications. Our shared goal: seeing the day when all Americans possess the tools to compete in commerce, to contribute to and enjoy the fruits of democracy, to receive unbiased and uncensored news and information, to create our culture. “ [emphasis added]

The Federal Communications Commission has a vague rule called “localism,” which requires stations to serve the interests of their local communities in order to hold onto their broadcast licenses. Obama, who gets to replace FCC Chairman Kevin Martin right away, needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism his way.

Jim Boulet, Jr., the head of English First in Washington, D.C., one of whose projects is www.keeprushontheair.com, has been studying and warning for months about the morphing of FCC localism. Boulet notes to Human Events the following:

• On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jess Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push. One month later, an insistent Obama sent a public letter to Chairman Martin stating, “The Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism.”

• The head of Obama’s transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. In 2007, the Center issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, which concluded there were too many conservatives on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

• Podesta’s choice as head of the FCC transition team is Henry Rivera, a Director and General Counsel of the above-noted Benton Foundation and chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council, which has stated: “Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders [think community organizers] in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.”

• Bowing to this pressure even while Bush is still President, the FCC proposed on January 24, 2008, the creation of permanent station advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues to ensure content diversity on the air.

• Any station that fails to placate these “local community leaders” would then be subject to license revocation by the FCC with an accelerated license review every two years as opposed to the current eight years. This would allow each station license in America to be attacked twice during just one Obama term.

Question: What organization first used “localism” at the FCC in this fashion? Answer: The United Church of Christ, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s highly-politicized denomination. UCC has an entity called the Office of Communication, Inc., which successfully took a broadcast license away from a Southern station it felt was not covering the civil rights movement fairly. This is just one reason John McCain should have realized Rev. Wright was fair game in the campaign.

This, then, is the historical template that Obama, Podesta, and their FCC maven Rivera intend to use to do something about the curse of conservative talk radio in America: Redefine FCC “localism” to give community activists the right to demand more local, liberal content. If station ownership does not comply, then licenses will be revoked and given to minority owners.

One of the more clever aspects of this “localism” plan is that, should a station lose its license to a liberal owner whose content will reflect his/her views, then there will be no Fairness Doctrine around to require equal time from aggrieved conservative listeners.

Christian radio stations will be saddled with local Muslim “advisory boards” demanding equal time and getting it. The Brave New World awaits.


Mr. Thompson is a writer and former lawyer in Miami who was Janet Reno's Republican opponent in 1988 for State Attorney. He secured the first broadcast decency fines ever levied by the FCC (1989) and represented Oliver North at the 1992 Time Warner shareholders meeting, persuading TW to pull rapper Ice-T's "Cop Killer" from store shelves worldwide. He can be reached at amendmentone@comcast.net. 

Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

 
 

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: richpo64 on November 20, 2008, 07:32:59 PM

Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
by Jack Thompson (more by this author)
Posted 11/20/2008 ET
Updated 11/20/2008 ET
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=29566 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=29566)

Get ready for an unprecedented government assault upon the First Amendment. President Obama will be at the heart of it. using his version of the “Fairness Doctrine”.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission created the “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated that federally-licensed radio and television stations “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints” on “vitally important controversial issues.” Rather than be deluged with demands for air time by aggrieved listeners, the broadcasters generally opted not to cover controversial issues, thereby leaving the public less informed.

In 1987, President Reagan’s FCC jettisoned the Fairness Doctrine, and conservative talk radio grew like topsy, unencumbered by the logistical nightmare of determining what is “controversial” and what is “fair.” Rush Limbaugh’s meteoric, syndicated rise is directly attributable to this repeal, as radio stations were freed to air what listeners wanted to hear without airing what few wanted to hear. If you think that’s unfair, check out how Air America is doing.

Limbaugh even today correctly says, “Don’t me ask for equal time; I am equal time. I am the rebuttal to the liberal, mainstream, drive-by media.”

With the Democrats now set to control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid say they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio’s criticism of the Democrats.

Barack Obama, however, in June 2008, , stated that he opposes bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, through his Press Secretary Michael Ortiz: “He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.” [emphasis added]

Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response from listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, and other conservative talk hosts who would be dropped rapidly from many if not all stations. Glenn Beck has warned that if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, he’ll be off the air.

Obama is way smarter than that. What he has in mind is an indirect and far more means to accomplish the demise of conservative talk -- America’s last town hall. The analogy is to the proverbial frog in the pot of water. Put him into boiling water, and out he’ll hop. Instant Boston Tea Party. Here, then, is the Obama plan to slow cook the First Amendment:

Charles Benton is Chairman of the Benton Foundation, with offices in Obama’s Chicago as well as in Obama’s Washington. Benton proclaims at his Foundation’s web site, “

• ur number one national communications policy priority must be the eradication of racial and gender discrimination in media and telecommunications. Our shared goal: seeing the day when all Americans possess the tools to compete in commerce, to contribute to and enjoy the fruits of democracy, to receive unbiased and uncensored news and information, to create our culture. “ [emphasis added]

The Federal Communications Commission has a vague rule called “localism,” which requires stations to serve the interests of their local communities in order to hold onto their broadcast licenses. Obama, who gets to replace FCC Chairman Kevin Martin right away, needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism his way.

Jim Boulet, Jr., the head of English First in Washington, D.C., one of whose projects is www.keeprushontheair.com, has been studying and warning for months about the morphing of FCC localism. Boulet notes to Human Events the following:

• On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jess Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push. One month later, an insistent Obama sent a public letter to Chairman Martin stating, “The Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism.”

• The head of Obama’s transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. In 2007, the Center issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, which concluded there were too many conservatives on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

• Podesta’s choice as head of the FCC transition team is Henry Rivera, a Director and General Counsel of the above-noted Benton Foundation and chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council, which has stated: “Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders [think community organizers] in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.”

• Bowing to this pressure even while Bush is still President, the FCC proposed on January 24, 2008, the creation of permanent station advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues to ensure content diversity on the air.

• Any station that fails to placate these “local community leaders” would then be subject to license revocation by the FCC with an accelerated license review every two years as opposed to the current eight years. This would allow each station license in America to be attacked twice during just one Obama term.

Question: What organization first used “localism” at the FCC in this fashion? Answer: The United Church of Christ, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s highly-politicized denomination. UCC has an entity called the Office of Communication, Inc., which successfully took a broadcast license away from a Southern station it felt was not covering the civil rights movement fairly. This is just one reason John McCain should have realized Rev. Wright was fair game in the campaign.

This, then, is the historical template that Obama, Podesta, and their FCC maven Rivera intend to use to do something about the curse of conservative talk radio in America: Redefine FCC “localism” to give community activists the right to demand more local, liberal content. If station ownership does not comply, then licenses will be revoked and given to minority owners.

One of the more clever aspects of this “localism” plan is that, should a station lose its license to a liberal owner whose content will reflect his/her views, then there will be no Fairness Doctrine around to require equal time from aggrieved conservative listeners.

Christian radio stations will be saddled with local Muslim “advisory boards” demanding equal time and getting it. The Brave New World awaits.


Mr. Thompson is a writer and former lawyer in Miami who was Janet Reno's Republican opponent in 1988 for State Attorney. He secured the first broadcast decency fines ever levied by the FCC (1989) and represented Oliver North at the 1992 Time Warner shareholders meeting, persuading TW to pull rapper Ice-T's "Cop Killer" from store shelves worldwide. He can be reached at amendmentone@comcast.net. 

Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

 
 

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: richpo64 on November 20, 2008, 08:23:08 PM

Weird

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Knutey on November 20, 2008, 09:14:49 PM

Quote from: richpo64 on November 20, 2008, 08:23:08 PM

Weird

You sure as sit are.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Brassmask on November 20, 2008, 09:26:24 PM

Something to make this thread of interest....

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/90214732_ce2f3474c8.jpg?v=0)

Quote

This full-scale schlieren image shows the discharge of a .44 Magnum revolver. Two spherical shock waves are seen, one centered about the gun’s muzzle (the muzzle blast) and a second centered on the cylinder. The supersonic bullet is visible at the far left. This weapon produces a bright muzzle flash and a cloud of products of gunpowder combustion that envelops the hands of the shooter. Such high-speed images help forensics experts understand the transfer of gunpowder traces to the hands when firing a gun.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/webgard/90214732/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/webgard/90214732/)

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Universe Prince on November 20, 2008, 10:36:50 PM

Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
by  Jack Thompson
11/20/2008


Get ready for an unprecedented government assault upon the First Amendment. President Obama will be at the heart of it. using his version of the “Fairness Doctrine”.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission created the “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated that federally-licensed radio and television stations “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints” on “vitally important controversial issues.” Rather than be deluged with demands for air time by aggrieved listeners, the broadcasters generally opted not to cover controversial issues, thereby leaving the public less informed.

In 1987, President Reagan’s FCC jettisoned the Fairness Doctrine, and conservative talk radio grew like topsy, unencumbered by the logistical nightmare of determining what is “controversial” and what is “fair.” Rush Limbaugh’s meteoric, syndicated rise is directly attributable to this repeal, as radio stations were freed to air what listeners wanted to hear without airing what few wanted to hear. If you think that’s unfair, check out how Air America is doing.

Limbaugh even today correctly says, “Don’t me ask for equal time; I am equal time. I am the rebuttal to the liberal, mainstream, drive-by media.”

With the Democrats now set to control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid say they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio’s criticism of the Democrats.

Barack Obama, however, in June 2008, , stated that he opposes bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, through his Press Secretary Michael Ortiz: “He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.”

Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response from listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, and other conservative talk hosts who would be dropped rapidly from many if not all stations. Glenn Beck has warned that if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, he’ll be off the air.

Obama is way smarter than that. What he has in mind is an indirect and far more means to accomplish the demise of conservative talk -- America’s last town hall. The analogy is to the proverbial frog in the pot of water. Put him into boiling water, and out he’ll hop. Instant Boston Tea Party. Here, then, is the Obama plan to slow cook the First Amendment:

Charles Benton is Chairman of the Benton Foundation, with offices in Obama’s Chicago as well as in Obama’s Washington. Benton proclaims at his Foundation’s web site, “our number one national communications policy priority must be the eradication of racial and gender discrimination in media and telecommunications. Our shared goal: seeing the day when all Americans possess the tools to compete in commerce, to contribute to and enjoy the fruits of democracy, to receive unbiased and uncensored news and information, to create our culture.”

The Federal Communications Commission has a vague rule called “localism,” which requires stations to serve the interests of their local communities in order to hold onto their broadcast licenses. Obama, who gets to replace FCC Chairman Kevin Martin right away, needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism his way.

Jim Boulet, Jr., the head of English First in Washington, D.C., one of whose projects is www.keeprushontheair.com, has been studying and warning for months about the morphing of FCC localism. Boulet notes to Human Events the following:

• On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jess Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push. One month later, an insistent Obama sent a public letter to Chairman Martin stating, “The Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism.”

• The head of Obama’s transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. In 2007, the Center issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, which concluded there were too many conservatives on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

• Podesta’s choice as head of the FCC transition team is Henry Rivera, a Director and General Counsel of the above-noted Benton Foundation and chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council, which has stated: “Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders (think community organizers) in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.”

• Bowing to this pressure even while Bush is still President, the FCC proposed on January 24, 2008, the creation of permanent station advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues to ensure content diversity on the air.

• Any station that fails to placate these “local community leaders” would then be subject to license revocation by the FCC with an accelerated license review every two years as opposed to the current eight years. This would allow each station license in America to be attacked twice during just one Obama term.

Question: What organization first used “localism” at the FCC in this fashion? Answer: The United Church of Christ, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s highly-politicized denomination. UCC has an entity called the Office of Communication, Inc., which successfully took a broadcast license away from a Southern station it felt was not covering the civil rights movement fairly. This is just one reason John McCain should have realized Rev. Wright was fair game in the campaign.

This, then, is the historical template that Obama, Podesta, and their FCC maven Rivera intend to use to do something about the curse of conservative talk radio in America: Redefine FCC “localism” to give community activists the right to demand more local, liberal content. If station ownership does not comply, then licenses will be revoked and given to minority owners.

One of the more clever aspects of this “localism” plan is that, should a station lose its license to a liberal owner whose content will reflect his/her views, then there will be no Fairness Doctrine around to require equal time from aggrieved conservative listeners.

Christian radio stations will be saddled with local Muslim “advisory boards” demanding equal time and getting it. The Brave New World awaits.

Mr. Thompson is a writer and former lawyer in Miami who was Janet Reno's Republican opponent in 1988 for State Attorney. He secured the first broadcast decency fines ever levied by the FCC (1989) and represented Oliver North at the 1992 Time Warner shareholders meeting, persuading TW to pull rapper Ice-T's "Cop Killer" from store shelves worldwide. He can be reached at amendmentone@comcast.net. 

Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Universe Prince on November 20, 2008, 10:51:25 PM

There you go, richpo. As best I can determine, the board kept trying to find code inside all those brackets [] in the original article, and something there was preventing the text from appearing.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Plane on November 21, 2008, 12:18:51 AM

Quote from: richpo64 on November 20, 2008, 07:29:24 PM

Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'


Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response from listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, and other conservative talk hosts who would be dropped rapidly from many if not all stations. Glenn Beck has warned that if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, he’ll be off the air.

 

 
 

You know, that sounds like fun.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Henny on November 21, 2008, 08:19:31 AM

OK, I could read through all of the strange code in the article well enough.

Now where is the debate and response on this? I'm not understanding the problem of localization. It seems that the assumption is that community activists who would be able to voice their opinion are all, automatically, liberal. What the hell is that?

The conclusion I'm drawing (and perhaps incorrectly) is that there is a fear of putting the fate of communications in the hands of the local people - in case they might be liberal and take Rush off the air.

Since when are local conservatives barred from being community activists?

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2008, 10:35:44 AM

Once more, the radio waves belong to the people, not Clear Channel and other conglomerates. These huge companies destroy all local control of what should be a local resource, filling airtime with a pathetically few and ill-informed assortment of talk show types, even more annoying popular music and even more than that, about twenty minutes of inane commercials per hour.

While two or three such stations in each market might be tolerable, it has come to where all stations are of this type except for NPR.

The public is not served well by commercial radio, and at least half of them do not listen to it at all, ever.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Plane on November 21, 2008, 11:36:26 AM

Quote from: Henny on November 21, 2008, 08:19:31 AM

OK, I could read through all of the strange code in the article well enough.

Now where is the debate and response on this? I'm not understanding the problem of localization. It seems that the assumption is that community activists who would be able to voice their opinion are all, automatically, liberal. What the hell is that?

The conclusion I'm drawing (and perhaps incorrectly) is that there is a fear of putting the fate of communications in the hands of the local people - in case they might be liberal and take Rush off the air.

Since when are local conservatives barred from being community activists?

More like the profit made by an hour of Rush Limbaugh will have to be paired with an hour of unprofitable liberal lecturers.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2008, 01:09:15 PM

More like the profit made by an hour of Rush Limbaugh will have to be paired with an hour of unprofitable liberal lecturers.


How profitable is Rush Limbaugh? And why should not the public airwaves present ALL viewpoints, not just the ones that are profitable? There is an alternative now: satellite radio, which does NOT belong to the government and will NOT be restricted, and can, if it chooses, present ONLY profitable viewpoints.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Plane on November 21, 2008, 07:48:04 PM

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2008, 01:09:15 PM

More like the profit made by an hour of Rush Limbaugh will have to be paired with an hour of unprofitable liberal lecturers.


How profitable is Rush Limbaugh? And why should not the public airwaves present ALL viewpoints, not just the ones that are profitable? There is an alternative now: satellite radio, which does NOT belong to the government and will NOT be restricted, and can, if it chooses, present ONLY profitable viewpoints.

It is the preference of the listening public that makes the profit , Rush Limbaugh is phenomenally profitable , it isn't cheap to buy an ad on his show.

Al Franken couldn't catch a sponsor with a net , the sponsors could read the ratings , no one was listening to the bradcast. You can't force people to tune in a radio to a station that is spewing nonsense , they have to want to.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Universe Prince on November 22, 2008, 12:47:06 AM

Quote from: Henny on November 21, 2008, 08:19:31 AM

Now where is the debate and response on this? I'm not understanding the problem of localization. It seems that the assumption is that community activists who would be able to voice their opinion are all, automatically, liberal. What the hell is that?

That is a problem I noticed in the article as well. My main problem with the idea is not whether the localization boards would be conservative or liberal, but with the very concept of a board to tell radio stations what they can and cannot have on the air to suit whatever some handful of people decide is in the local interest. Frankly, the radio stations already have people to tell them what the local interests are. Those people are called listeners. As in, the people who listen to the radio stations. Establishing a board of a few to somehow determine what other people ought to listen to smacks of authoritarianism and condescension. The people are too stupid and ignorant to know what she should be listening to, so we're going to force the radio stations to broadcast what you should want to hear or else the station will lose its license. It doesn't put power in the hands of the people, it takes power away from the people and hands it to a select few. But maybe being treated like ignorant children is the change people who voted for Obama expect and want. I don't want it, whether from liberals or conservatives, though I doubt localization boards would be formed to represent the local interests of people like me.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Universe Prince on November 22, 2008, 01:06:39 AM

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2008, 01:09:15 PM

How profitable is Rush Limbaugh?

Still on the air and still one of the top talk shows in the country, so he must be making money for somebody.

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2008, 01:09:15 PM

And why should not the public airwaves present ALL viewpoints, not just the ones that are profitable?

Well, for one, because radio stations are in business to make a profit so they can continue to operate. For another, no one is stopping someone else from presenting less profitable radio (provided they can get the equipment and the license). No one is stopping Air America Radio. Big bad Clear Channel actually owns stations that broadcast Air America. Obviously AAR must make some money too. I'm not sure why you're bitching about this. Your question amounts to asking why can't we just force everything to be fair? The answer is, because as soon as you force it, it is no longer actually fair. And be honest, do you really want all viewpoints on your radio stations? Holocaust deniers and the KKK and Creationists and libertarian anarchists, et cetera, would you really bother to listen if they were all on the radio?

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2008, 05:32:59 AM

I see no reason why it is in the public's benefit for Clear Channel to own a bazillion stations.
Consider that Rush is necessarily profiting from crap they sell on his show, but from people who pay him to rally the lumpenproletariat to his various dubious causes.

The right of a radio station to earn money is secondary to its providing a public service over the public airwaves.

After all, Rush and Clear Channel can rent space on satellite radio with no need to provide a public service at all. And that's what they should do.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2008, 12:06:23 AM

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2008, 05:32:59 AM

people who pay him to rally the lumpenproletariat to his various dubious causes.

You seem to believe this , but why?

Even if Limbaugh were given huge fortunes by archerons ,ten times what the earns from adverts , this would not cause a single person to listen to him.

It is illogical and irrelevant both to think that oligarchs are making Rush Limbaugh popular by making him rich.

Title: Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
Post by: Universe Prince on November 23, 2008, 12:37:00 AM

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2008, 05:32:59 AM

I see no reason why it is in the public's benefit for Clear Channel to own a bazillion stations.

They don't. But then, you don't need to see the reason why. The public has chosen by supporting stations that are owned by Clear Channel.

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2008, 05:32:59 AM

Consider that Rush is necessarily profiting from crap they sell on his show, but from people who pay him to rally the lumpenproletariat to his various dubious causes.

I think you meant not necessarily profiting from the crap they sell on his show. But Your criticism is baseless. I have yet to see any evidence that he is paid by behind-the-scenes conspirators to do anything at all. You're promoting, best I can tell, paranoid speculation that is as bad if not worse than that of the "oh no the liberals will force Rush from the air" stuff in the article.

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2008, 05:32:59 AM

The right of a radio station to earn money is secondary to its providing a public service over the public airwaves.

The hell it is.

Yes, that is a counterargument. You made an assertion. So did I. When you start arguing about forcing AAR to broadcast Rush Limbaugh or something similar, then get back to me about this pious "providing a public service" and "all viewpoints" position.

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2008, 05:32:59 AM

After all, Rush and Clear Channel can rent space on satellite radio with no need to provide a public service at all. And that's what they should do.

So can Air America Radio. I don't see you demanding it get off the airwaves. Seems to me your beef is with conservatives expressing themselves, not with fairness in radio.