Reid wants to register bloggers

[Amianthus]

The FD would not have given Delay any time.  It wouldn't apply to a story about a guy getting indicted for a crime.  The indicted criminal didn't get time to come on and defend himself.

Actually, Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 exempted newscasts. The Fairness Doctrine, however, did not.

From the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

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

[_JS]

Can we put you down for advocating a "Fainess Doctrine" withing our higher education centers, High schools, Colleges, Universities, where wtudents don't have the option of "switching channels"?  Or are you only targeting the 1 area that Conservatives actually have a strong voice

I thought you told Lanya that you aren't playing the victim? Sounds like whining victimhood to me.


The problem with American news media is that it is all garbage anyway. Our "national newspaper" is written for gradeschoolers to read. We should adopt more of a British system where a newspaper's bias is already known and you read what you like. The BBC, on the other hand, is a far superior news source than any of the American outlets. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are crap in comparison.

[Brassmask]

The FD would not have given Delay any time.  It wouldn't apply to a story about a guy getting indicted for a crime.  The indicted criminal didn't get time to come on and defend himself.

Actually, Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 exempted newscasts. The Fairness Doctrine, however, did not.

From the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

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

My point stands.  The reporting of a congressman being indicted for taking bribes would not have enduced the station reporting such to get every criminal "equal time" to refute the charges.

[Amianthus]

My point stands.  The reporting of a congressman being indicted for taking bribes would not have enduced the station reporting such to get every criminal "equal time" to refute the charges.

Depends on the whim of the FCC monitors at the time. And it's not "every criminal" - it's just those that are politicians. The politician could request the "equal time" provision to kick in, and the FCC would have to rule on each request.

That's the point.

[sirs]

I thought you told Lanya that you aren't playing the victim? Sounds like whining victimhood to me.

Of course, what was I thinking.  Supporting the right to free speech is simply "whining".  I should just sit back and allow the 1st amendment to be trampled on some more. 

The problem with American news media is that it is all garbage anyway. Our "national newspaper" is written for gradeschoolers to read. We should adopt more of a British system where a newspaper's bias is already known and you read what you like.

I think that's already the case.  Bias in news reporting is becoming less and less subtle.  Most folks can grasp those that lean R (Fox news, WSJ, & Wash Times) and those that lean L (pretty much every other publication and major news outlet)  We already take that into account every time we read their top stories and op-eds.  I know I'm reminded of that any and every time a WSJ article is posted, or a Fox News story is referenced

[Brassmask]

Would it also apply to the Kossacks?

At this time, I would say no and here's why.  The Kossacks are not an organization legally.  The Swiftboaters were a a paid organization that came to gether in order to present lies in order to influence public opinion by making television commercials and so forth.  DailyKos is not a 527 as far as I know.  While the Swiftboaters worked hard to make it appear they were just some guys coming together to spontaneously, I believe it was discovered that they were paid to do so but I can't back that up right this second.  I will try.

Now, don't hit reply yet.  This new law may apply to Markos Moulitsas as the owner of DailyKos IF he does endorse a certain candidate and posts on his site in order to get people to vote for that candidate AND (AND THIS IS THE VERY MOST RELEVANT PART) HE IS PAID BY THAT CANDIDATE TO DO SO.

I know you like to make a big deal out of Moulitsas getting paid by the Dean Campaign way back when but even in that case, I don't really think it would apply (though it might warrant investigation to verify) to Markos' payment then.  Markos was NOT paid to advocate Dean (the way that guy was paid to advocate Bush's education plans and the way you like to mis-represent Markos being paid).  Markos was paid to do technical consulting for the Dean campaign which included recommendations on blogging software and the like.

Now, this leads to selling advertising on one's blog.  Say something happens and I turn Brassmask.com into a local DailyKos kind of thing in the next few months and the law passes and I'm selling ads on my site.  Al Gore's campaign sends me an email and wants to buy an ad.  I say yes, of course, 'cause  I like money.  Does an ad on my site that he paid for mean that I'm susceptible to that law?

1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and
(2) by adding at the end of the following:
`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.

Suppose YOU sell an ad for Al Gore on here because you like money and his is green just like anyone else's?  Is your intent to influence everyone who comes here to vote for Al Gore?  I don't think so.  So, it shouldn't apply to me and hence it shouldn't apply to DailyKos either.

Now if Al Gore writes out a contract with Markos Moulitsas that says that MM is going to do some posting favorable to the Gore campaign, then that applies, I think.

[Brassmask]

Actually, what I hate is the government telling me what I can and can't listen to.  

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't do that.  In fact, if you don't like hearing the opposing view, just turn the volume down.

It cuts both ways.

What the Fairness Doctrine was TRYING TO DO is make everyone actually "fair and balanced" but it seems you don't actually like that unless it is code on FOX NEWS for "Fuck Opposing Views".

As for opposing views in schools and so forth, that's different.  See, the effect I would want with a new Fairness Doctrine is to shut down the one place where conservatives go to be alone and wallow in their ignorance and hate.  Talk Radio and FOX NEWS.

[sirs]

Actually, what I hate is the government telling me what I can and can't listen to.  

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't do that.  In fact, if you don't like hearing the opposing view, just turn the volume down.

Yes it does.  IF said radio doesn't have an anti-Rush fella to listen, the actual Rush is PREVENTED from being heard (i.e. 1st amendment being trampled on)  If you want to listen to an opposing view, then listen to one on a station that has them.  Oh wait, their ratings suck, because no one wants to listen to them.

It cuts both ways.

No it doesn't.  It targets the one area of media that Conservatives actually have a stronger voice of that of liberals.  Gads, talk about selfish. 

As for opposing views in schools and so forth, that's different.  See, the effect I would want with a new Fairness Doctrine is to shut down the one place where conservatives go to be alone and wallow in their ignorance and hate.  Talk Radio and FOX NEWS.

Well of course it is.  It's different because it's dominated by the liberal POV, with the added advantage of a captive audience.  As I said, your hypocrisy obviously has no bounds   

[Brassmask]

I think that's already the case.  Bias in news reporting is becoming less and less subtle.  Most folks can grasp those that lean R (Fox news, WSJ, & Wash Times) and those that lean L (pretty much every other publication and major news outlet)

I really don't get that.  I know you guys keep bleating along that every other news publication and outlet is liberal but damn, that is just wrong.  PBS is second to FOX news.  That John Lehrer might as well be George Will without the personality.

Newsweek and Time have some of the biggest shills for the Bush "adminstration" in the world!  The Today Show (an alleged bastion of liberalism run amok) REGULARLY schedules that Nazi skank Coulter (not to mention Matt Lauer regularly salivates over how great Bush is) and ABC has just hired asshat Glenn Beck to do commentary and Stephanopolous has Cokie Roberts and Will on nearly every week and squeezes in fareed Zakaria as much as possible.

I know you like to say that Katie Couric is a liberal but I remember her getting lots of flack in her first week on the CBS news for allowing Rush Limbaugh a two minute hate on there.  Also, one of Nixon's speechwriters and notorious rightwinger Ben Stein is a regular commentator on Sunday Morning.

Brian Williams is a huge rightwinger as well as Charles Gibson.

So where the hell is all this alleged liberlism seeping in?  Amy Goodman?  Olbermann?

Maybe you're counting all the times that rightwingers on FOX just hammer on Jimmy Carter as instances of liberal bias since they are talking about a liberal.  Is that it?

[Brassmask]

Yes it does.  IF said radio doesn't have an anti-Rush fella to listen, the actual Rush is PREVENTED from being heard (i.e. 1st amendment being trampled on)  If you want to listen to an opposing view, then listen to one on a station that has them.  Oh wait, their ratings suck, because no one wants to listen to them.

No it doesn't.  All he has to do is get a non=Rush and he can talk all he wants as long the other guy gets equal time.  Maybe Rush and Al Franken should just get a show together.  That's fair.  Hey, maybe that's why its called the FAIRness Doctrine.

What you don't like is that Rush (and Sean and Glenn Beck and all the other liars) can't just ramble ad nauseam without being called on their bullshit.  They would have choices.  it's all about choices isn't it?  Isn't that what we're always getting told when I say something like I have to buy gas?  Well, my choice of moving somewhere and not buying gas is the same as Rush having the choice to have what he wants (to talk) and the changes he'd have to make (give equal time).

And just remember, the airwaves don't belong to him.  They belong to us and we all get a say in how we allow him to use them.

[Universe Prince]

Personally, I have no idea why anyone would want the return of the "Fairness Doctrine". It is contrary to the First Amendment, and would accomplish little good if any. It would not make newscasts more fair. We've already seen with Fox News that a "fair and balanced" approach does not necessarily result in a result all sides of a story getting equal representation. And some news stories and analysis does not really need to have a second side be told. I mean, who here wants to see news networks like CNN or MSNBC forced to have someone who denies the Holocaust given equal time when the station covers things like Iran's recent Holocaust deniers conference? Anyone? I know I don't. Anyone care to see the Aryan Nation or David Duke getting equal time when the news channels want to discuss race relations? Maybe they should find someone who likes hitting women when 20/20 or one of those shows covers stories of spousal abuse. I'm not interested in forcing people to do that, and I don't know why anyone else would want that. So I'm against the return of the (to my ear quite Orwellian sounding) "Fairness Doctrine".

[Universe Prince]

And then there is the case for simply eliminating the FCC, which is summed up nicely over at Slate in an nice article by Jack Shafer. An excerpt:

Suppose Congress had established in the early 19th century a Federal Publications Commission to regulate the newspaper, magazine, and newsletter businesses. The supporters of the FPC would have argued that such regulation was necessary because paper-pulp-grade timber is a scarce resource, and this scarcity made it incumbent upon the government to determine not only who could enter the publications business but where. Hence, the FPC would issue publication licenses to the "best" applicants and deny the rest. Whenever an aspiring publisher pointed out that timber wasn't scarce, that huge groves of trees in Canada and the western territories made it plentiful, and that he wanted to start a new publication based on this abundance, an FPC commissioner would talk him down. He'd explain that just because somebody had discovered additional timber didn't mean that the scarcity problem was over, it only meant that timber was relatively less scarce than before. He'd go on to say that the FPC needed to study how best to exploit this new timber before issuing new licenses. Based on the notion of scarcity, the FPC would have evolved a power to prohibit licensees from using their paper for anything but publishing the kind of print product the FPC had authorized—no using that licensed paper to print party invitations or menus or handbills or facial tissue, the FPC would mandate. Click Here! And so on. The absurd regulatory agency that I imagine here is only slightly more absurd than the Federal Communications Commission, which has exercised even greater control over the radio spectrum. Until the mid-1980s, broadcasters had to obey the "fairness doctrine," which required them to air opposing views whenever they aired a viewpoint on a controversial issue. Rather than tempt an FCC inquiry, most broadcasters simply avoided airing any controversial views.

Whole thing at the other end of this link.

[sirs]

All he has to do is get a non=Rush and he can talk all he wants as long the other guy gets equal time. 

Listen to yourself, Brass.  "All he has to do in order to express his POV is be required to have someone else express an opposite POV, and if they don't have one then......I guess he can't give his POV now, can he."  See?  Blantantly contrary to the very core of the 1st amendment.  And that's what you're advocating?  Of course not.  What you're advocating is tolerance to free speech as long as it's the speech you support.  Otherwise we must have a "fairness doctrine" to deal with their "lies"

Frellin incredible

What you don't like is that Rush (and Sean and Glenn Beck and all the other liars) can't just ramble ad nauseam without being called on their bullshit. 

They're already called on their "BS" all the time.  Then they demonstrate the ususal BS it is being thrown at them.  What you don't like is from a ratings stand point, people actually listen to them, while they won't listen to the likes of Fanken.  How dare they

They would have choices.  it's all about choices isn't it?  

WE ALREADY DO.  THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.  We can chose to listen to them or we can chose NOT to.  When we chose not to, their ratings tank.  Guess which ones have been tanking, Brass?

And just remember, the airwaves don't belong to him.  They belong to us and we all get a say in how we allow him to use them.

Actually, they belong to the radio companies, and the consumers that provide the ratings to those shows.  But hey, if you're all about stomping on the Bill of rights, who am I to get in the way.  Oh wait....a U.S. Citizen who actually supports the Bill of Rights and the 1st amendment

[Lanya]

It was my understanding that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC.  The various radio and TV stations are licensed to use them, but they do not OWN them.   That's why it is vital to have the Fairness Doctrine. 

Unless you  have a source to prove what you said....?

[Amianthus]

It was my understanding that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC.

Then why does the FCC hold auctions periodically for bandwidth?