Speaking of Anti-1st amendment dren

[Universe Prince]

You obviously don't know much about how people buy real property.

I have some inkling of how it works, but you have once again glossed over that individuals generally buy land from other individuals, not from the government. That the government facilitates the legal end of the situation does not dilute my point even a little. In fact, that supports my point.

If it's a trademark, my argument is even stronger, since the Big Bad Government has to maintain a searchable registry of trade marks and as a matter of fact I think it also maintains a copyright registry as well.

No, the government does not have to do it. That just happens to be the system we have set in place.

So what?  That's like saying they built their own house and didn't buy it from the government.

Yes. Which, again, bolsters my point.

NO, of course not.  A better solution would be anarchy of the airwaves.  Whoever has a [blah blah blah...]

Hello? Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I did not say there could not be a role for government. Pay attention. I did not suggest anarchy of the airwaves or of anything else. I mentioned specific examples of the government having regulations in place without selling licenses for use and you're off ranting about some chaotic anarchy where everyone does whatever they want. Can you say strawman? I knew you could.

Nice attempt to change the subject, Prince.  The subject is broadcasting, and how the concentration of ownership narrows the range of opinions broadcast.  Specifically, in the context of a seeming preponderance of extreme right-wing opinion on talk-show radio.  The common good came up in the narrow context of:  it is consistent or inconsistent with the common good that the range of opinion expressed through radio broadcasting on publicly-licensed airwaves be a wide range of opinions from left to right, or a narrow range of opinions, either left wing or right-wing?  In setting broadcast licensing policy, should the government stick to a policy which the study shows has tended to narrow down the range of opinions expressed, or should it revert to a policy which had led to a broader range of opinions expressed.

I'm not changing the subject. You are the one who brought the concept of the government acting in the common good into the discussion. I'm following up with obvious and pertinent questions. Talking about the common good sounds nice, but it is not an objective standard. So asking if something is consistent or inconsistent with the common good is a rather vague question. As for narrowing down the range of opinions expressed, if talk radio were the only medium for public expression, maybe I'd be more concerned. But it isn't and I'm not.

You wanted to turn the discussion into a more general one of who should be allowed to determine the common good

No, I wanted to point out that the term 'common good' has widely different meanings to different people, and arguing for regulations in the name of the common good is not a recipe for diversity of opinions.

For the record, and just so that you'll know, I happen to be the person who should be allowed, in general, to determine the common good, simply because I know best,

Yeah, I guessed as much.

but for the purposes of this discussion, I think all that we have to determine is whether or not it's in the common interest for the range of radio broadcast opinion to be a wide range from left to right or a narrow range of right-wing opinion.

And to determine that we need to first pin down a definition of the common interest or common good. Which is why it ultimately cannot be determined to any reasonable degree.

<<You're the one who insists that Cuba is fully justified in abridging the right of free speech for Cuban citizens to protect "the Revolution." So obviously you're willing to see some diverse opinions silenced given certain situations. >>

True.

This is why I have to doubt the sincerity of your arguments for diversity of opinions.

Given that the government IS going to be licensing radio broadcast frequencies now and for  the foreseeable future, should that licensing power be exercised as it has been in the recent past, which the study shows has tended to concentrate ownership and narrow the ideological range of broadcast opinions - - or should it revert to the way in which it had previously exercised its discretion, which the study shows led to a diversity of ownership and a wider ideological range of broadcast opinions?

In short, no.

The contrary evidence that I "glossed over" was your anecdotal (and, IIRC, completely undocumented) "evidence"

Clear Channel's attempt at Air America channels is not undocumented and is relevant to the discussion.

You can't undermine the effectiveness of a professional, well-conducted study by citing individual examples falling outside the general conclusions of the study.  The study itself recognizes that its conclusions apply in most but not all cases.  You act as if the exceptions invalidate the rule.  That's nonsense.

Why I can't I undermine the study by citing evidence that seems to me to contradict it? The evidence I see points to radio station owners looking for what makes money, not attempting to force everyone to listen to only right-wing hosts. So I kinda have to doubt the study's conclusion as presented by you that radio station owners owning multiple stations is the cause of a lack of left-wing talk show hosts. I'm not buying it. Other evidence I have looked at suggests that there are in fact more varied formats in radio now than ever before. Which also leads me to not believe that radio station owners owning multiple stations has not resulted in a decline of diversity in radio as a whole. So I find the study you're touting to be questionable. And quite frankly, if evidence to the contrary of a study cannot be used to question the study, then how can it be questioned?

<<The consolidation of radio ownership began as a result of FCC regulations to save radio from (supposedly) too many radio stations competing for ad dollars. >>

That's exactly what I said - - but you just chose to leave out that in their competition for ad dollars they were broadcasting on common frequencies and drowning one another out.

And whose fault was that? The FCC still licensed radio stations at that time, did it not?

I never denied that this was a heavily-regulated industry.

No, but you were going on about deregulation as if somehow radio station owners were free to do anything.

<<The FCC has cracked down on unlicensed radio stations, most them small, less than 100 watts. And pretty much all of those stations are unlicensed because the FCC won't issue licenses for stations at 100 watts or less. (Though this situation may change in the future.)>>

So what?  This debate has nothing to do with licensing 100-watt-or-less  stations.  It's about an increasing uniformity of opinion in the stations that are licensed.

So the whole point of all this is to promote the notion of diversity of opinion in radio through increased competition, is it not?

<<Even some folks who want to establish larger stations cannot do so because the costs of navigating the bureaucracy to get a license is far too expensive for most people. >>

Then they shouldn't be in the fucking business.  Let them work in the industry for 20 years, save up a few bucks, get a good credit rating, make a few key allies and THEN try to start up a station.  Who told them it had to be handed to them on a silver platter?

Hmm. Perhaps diversity of opinion in radio through increased competition is not the point. Maybe you're just arguing regulations for the sake of regulations.

<< Have you ever looked into the total costs associated with starting up a broadcast radio station? To start station can cost upwards of $50,000 and to operate for just a year can cost in the neighborhood of $150,000, and that is for a relatively small station. And that doesn't even account for all the legal fees involved. >>

Cry me a river.  If they're looking for a business they can start on a shoestring, they should try a roadside lemonade stand.

Okay, I don't get how you can argue for more competition in radio, but suggest that only wusses care about how much getting into the business costs. I suggested cost was one of the barriers to increased competition, you suggested that was nonsense, and now you're acting like the costs are no big deal. When you talk like that, it makes me think you don't care about competition or diversity, just regulations that you think will result in more liberal voices on the radio.

Well, that's good for another thread - - satellite radio licensing.  Meantime back here on earth, the subject was the increasing dominance of right-wing opinion on talk radio shows (apparently there are still some of those left around, Sirius and XM not yet having grabbed off ALL of their listeners) and the issue was (remember?) whether licensing policy should be aimed at concentrating ownership and restricting range of opinions or broadening ownership and broadening range of opinions.

I thought it was about competition increasing a diversity of opinion. Isn't that why the study you keep talking about suggests that the number of owners needs to be increased through regulation? The point I was trying to make (and obviously did not make well because you failed to see it) is that regulations in place now are directly impacting the amount of competition in the radio marketplace. If more ownership and more competition is what we need for diversity of opinion, then adding on more regulations hardly seems like the way to go. It's kinda like suggesting that one can make a heavy load easier to bear by adding more weight to it.

<<And you're talking to me about how this is all some example of deregulation diminishing competition? >>

No, I was talking to you about how concentrating ownership was diminishing competition.

You also said, "You have a direct and specific example right in front of you of deregulation diminishing competition". Am I the only one paying attention here?

But if government can get the NAB off its back long enough to reconsider its policy on station ownership, should it or should it not decide to limit the number of stations one owner may have, in view of the study's conclusions?

No. Was I not clear about suggesting that radio should have less regulations rather than more?

[Michael Tee]

And yet again, we are indebted to sirs for another sterling example of head-in-the-sand, facts-be-damned, conservative "thinking" or "philosophy," wherein a careful and factual study, whose methodology is criticized by nobody, concludes that it is concentration of ownership, caused by deregulation, which caused the predominance of right-wing opinion in broadcast radio. 

sirs' "I don't need no stinkin' study" opinion alone, unsupported by any study or survey that we know of, should be sufficient to dispose of the question once and for all - - it is obviously listener preference, not concentration of ownership, that is responsible for the predominance of right-wing opinion in talk radio shows.  Surveys be damned.  Studies be damned.  sirs knows better than any f****n survey.  sirs is and will always be the final authority on such matters.  Because he's sirs.

[sirs]

Good thing we have the likes of Tee to tell us all how we're to think and what opinions we must listen to, or we all must be morons, and need the Government to correct that egregious problem

 

[gipper]

I'll accept the fact, which I've only lightly examined, that the irreducible reason for the burgeoning popularity of right-wing talk radio is viewer preference. As a proposition unattached to a larger theoretical orientation, and as the celebrated -- no, sacred -- unit (individual choice) upon which so much of American public and private philosophy is based, viewer preference seems superficially unassailable, almost a "D'oh." But delved into further, in a more sophisticated approach one trained in sociology such as I favor, the demand for an airwave product may not dictate its availability but rather the supply satisfies a fairly constant, pre-existing and fungible demand. Undeveloped, this seems to be Michael's thesis. Though resonating with a reality we all recognize and harbor to some degree -- the "sheeple" character of much public behavior -- it nonetheless cuts to the quick: it challenges, if not upsets, the basic foundation of America in individual choice and volition, but perhaps Michael's critique vindicates the sister principle that truth will out.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . you have once again glossed over that individuals generally buy land from other individuals, not from the government. That the government facilitates the legal end of the situation does not dilute my point even a little. In fact, that supports my point.>>

Your point was that government regulation was not necessary to prevent ten guys broadcasting on the same frequency because you don't have ten guys trying to occupy the same plot of land.  I rebutted that by pointing out that the reason you don't have 10 guys trying to take the same plot of land was because the government operates a very elaborate system of county registry offices where deeds and other title documents are deposited and registered for the purpose of establishing title and a whole system of courts and police to back up legitimate title claims.  I don't see in any way how your point is "supported" by the fact that Jones buys his land from Smith.  The fact that Brown and Jackson and Thompson and Edwards don't all try to horn in on Jones' new-bought land has nothing at all do to with who he bought it from - - it has to do with the fact that he, Jones, is the sole registered owner of the land and if anyone else sets foot on it without Jones' permission, Jones will sue his ass off, produce the registry books and records to the court and prove his title.

<<No, the government does not have to do it [register trademarks and enforce registered trademark rights against infringement.] That just happens to be the system we have set in place.>>

And by some extraordinary coincidence, that just happens to be the system used by every other country on the face of the earth to protect trademark rights.  Nobody else on this planet seems to have found an alternative system.  Perhaps you could enlighten us all, Prince.  Bring into the light of day your better way.

<<Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I did not say there could not be a role for government. Pay attention. >>

Oh, I saw it alright.  What I didn't see was any connection between that and the licensing of various broadcast frequencies to various individuals.  I guess I missed the part where you told us what the government's role could be in avoiding different guys all broadcasting on the same frequency.  >>

<<I did not suggest anarchy of the airwaves or of anything else. I mentioned specific examples of the government having regulations in place without selling licenses for use and you're off ranting about some chaotic anarchy where everyone does whatever they want.>>

Well, Prince, I guess I just missed it.  How DID you propose that the problem of different guys all broadcasting on the same frequency be avoided if not through government licensing of broadcasters and assigning frequencies to the licence holders?

<<Can you say strawman? I knew you could.>>


Not only say it, but with an apology too - - PROVIDED you can show me where you already explained how the government or anyone else proposed to stop ten guys broadcasting on the same frequency without a licensing system in place.

<<I'm not changing the subject. You are the one who brought the concept of the government acting in the common good into the discussion. I'm following up with obvious and pertinent questions. Talking about the common good sounds nice, but it is not an objective standard. So asking if something is consistent or inconsistent with the common good is a rather vague question. As for narrowing down the range of opinions expressed, if talk radio were the only medium for public expression, maybe I'd be more concerned. But it isn't and I'm not.>>


Your argument here is really disingenuous.  It's as if I had suggested that removing high levels of arsenic from the public water supply might be good for public health, and you had responded, "Talking about the public health sounds nice, but it is not an objective standard.  What really serves public health?  Should we be pursuing longevity at the expense of quality of life?  Should we include unborn fetuses in our determination of public health?  Should we pursue diseases which strike at specific racial or ethnic groups more vigorously than less lethal illnesses which hit the general population but with more devastating quality-of-life effects?  How much should remaining life-span factor into public health?  Gee, "public health" really isn't an objective standard, so any question of whether something is consistent with public health or not is "rather a vague question."  This is bullshit, Prince.  What you are really saying is that unless you can nail down a universal, all-encompassing definition of what is or is not "public health" or "common good" then you can't determine if ANYTHING serves either the public health or the common good.  CRAP.  I believe - - and I think a huge consensus of others believe as well - - that in any public medium, a trend towards a diversity of opinion is more desirable than a trend towards uniformity of opinion.  And NOBODY has to nail down a perfect and exhaustive definition of the common interest or the common good before coming to such a conclusion.

<<[Because you're OK with Fidel suppressing freedom of speech in Cuba] [t]his is why I have to doubt the sincerity of your arguments for diversity of opinions.>>

Very funny.  First of all, because this is simply a debating forum and not a run for political office, you don't have to worry about my sincerity at all.  Whether I'm sincere or not, whether I am playing Devil's Advocate or not, is not really a legitimate concern of yours.  An argument has been presented essentially in favour of reinstated regulations limiting the number of stations that a licence holder can own, and you should be prepared to take a position for or against and defend it.  Secondly, because everybody's in favour of some limitation on freedom of speech in some circumstances.  I don't recall too much Nazi propaganda circulating in the Allied countries during WWII for example, I don't think anyone really favours circulating NAMBLA propaganda material in our public schools, and I don't think that all-night discussions about the proper course to hold should be held in the wheelhouse of a ship in the midst of a hurricane at sea.  (Just saw a re-run of The Caine Mutiny a few nights ago.)  So I what I support in Cuba I don't support in Canada or the U.S.A. simply because Cuba's in a much more precarious position than we are and lives under the daily threat of U.S. subversion and re-colonization.

<<Clear Channel's attempt at Air America channels is not undocumented and is relevant to the discussion.>>

You're right.  My mistake.  Sorry.

<<Why . . . can't I undermine the study by citing evidence that seems to me to contradict it? >>

Well, of course you can in the sense that nobody will stop you or should stop you.  I meant that it's just not very convincing.  A systematic and credible study, considering matters at length, presumably considering the very anecdotes that you cite in opposition (which are not really all that surprising or all that unprecedented - - the Village Voice was for a time owned, I believe, by the right-wing Mort Zuckerman) has come to one conclusion, and you - - citing only one or two isolated anecdotes that the study must have considered already and fitted into the larger picture - - use the anecdotal evidence as if it invalidated the study's conclusions. 

The fallacy in your approach is obviously that the study has never even claimed that its conclusions constituted a universal and inflexible rule permitting of no exceptions.  The study did not conclude that no owner could ever or would ever try to make a few bucks by airing left-wing opinion.  So the fact that a conservative owner did once or twice try to make a few bucks that way in no way vitiates its final conclusions, which are about the overall effect of the concentration of ownership, not about each and every single thing that happened since the deregulation.

<<The evidence I see points to radio station owners looking for what makes money, not attempting to force everyone to listen to only right-wing hosts.>>

The evidence you see.  Hilarious.  What evidence do you see that indicates to you that they are not only attempting to make money but also promote their own pro-capitalist, right-wing views?  Do you sit in on their board meetings?  Do they bare their souls to you in agonized all-night telephone conversations?

<<So I kinda have to doubt the study's conclusion as presented by you that radio station owners owning multiple stations is the cause of a lack of left-wing talk show hosts. I'm not buying it. >>

Sorry.  I've seen no evidence of methodological flaws int eh study and I'm not aware of anyone else criticizing it on that basis.  I take it at face value, first because it makes perfect sense.  If ownership is concentrated, it will tend to concentrate in the hands of the wealthier broadcasters, who would tend to favour right-wing views.  Some could be the George Soros of broadcasting, but I don't know of any and even if I did, there would tend to be more who aren't.  Second, if the stations blanket an area so that one man controls all the broadcasting, the motive to profit by varying the message might not be there, especially given the relative buying power of the rich and conservative over the poor and liberal.  What's the good of increasing listener share another 20% if that 20% can't buy the luxury autos, concert tickets or whatever the station's advertising money comes from?  How much money is enough?  There's obviously a point  - - the Law of Diminishing Returns - - where the benefits of roping in more liberal listeners just isn't justified in terms of the additional revenue expected.

<<Other evidence I have looked at suggests that there are in fact more varied formats in radio now than ever before. >>

So what?  We're talking diversity of opinion, not diversity of format.

<<Which also leads me to not believe that radio station owners owning multiple stations has not resulted in a decline of diversity in radio as a whole. So I find the study you're touting to be questionable.>>

Yeah.  Because it does not accord with your own preconceptions.

<<And whose fault was that? [that the "too many" stations competing for advertiser dollars were broadcasting on one another's frequecy]  The FCC still licensed radio stations at that time, did it not?>>

As I understand it, the initial broadcasters were not licensed by the FCC and in fact there was no FCC.  It came into existence (or some kind of regulatory body for the airwaves came into existence) because of the "anarchy" of unregulated broadcasting and multiple party use of the same broadcast frequencies.


<<No, but you were going on about deregulation as if somehow radio station owners were free to do anything.>>

I certainly was not and I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion.  Any fucking idiot would have to know that the broadcast industry is very heavily regulated.  Furthermore, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not concentration of ownership leads to greater uniformity of opinion.


<<So the whole point of all this is to promote the notion of diversity of opinion in radio through increased competition, is it not?>>

Yes of course, but in the real world, where viable stations are more than 100 watts.  What kind of diversity are you going to achieve if disaffected hippies and college students can broadcast all they like on 20-watt stations only to be swamped by mega-station chains owned by billionaires?  We are talking about diversity of opinion among the stations that dominate the market, that people are actually listening to.

<<Hmm. Perhaps diversity of opinion in radio through increased competition is not the point. Maybe you're just arguing regulations for the sake of regulations.>>

No the point is diversity of opinion amongst those who are able to run a station not amongst penniless schmucks who can't get their act together enough to step into the business.  I have no sympathy for anyone who's so unbusinesslike that he wants to enter a field where he can't even afford the legal and licensing fees.  It's a complex field and if he can't take the heat he'd better stay out of the kitchen.  If he's not prepared with some backup cash and/or credit then he's got no business playing in the big leagues with the big boys.  He'll vanish soon enough and his opinions with him.  Better to give the franchise to someone who knows how to make good use of it in the first place.

<<Okay, I don't get how you can argue for more competition in radio, but suggest that only wusses care about how much getting into the business costs. I suggested cost was one of the barriers to increased competition, you suggested that was nonsense, and now you're acting like the costs are no big deal. >>

Get over it, Prince.  There's an entrance fee and quite frankly, it's not a hell of a lot of money.  If a guy can't assemble that kind of money he's got no business in that world anyway.  If he's got the balls he'll raise the dough and if he don't, he won't.  End of story.

<<When you talk like that, it makes me think you don't care about competition or diversity, just regulations that you think will result in more liberal voices on the radio. >>

Please, Prince.  In order to have competition you need to have qualified competitors.  You could get "more competition" at Wimbledon by allowing in 10,000 high-school tennis champs, but what would be the point?  They'd all wash out early and just waste everyone's time.  There are already enough qualified owners or potential owners to assure diversity if the restrictions on multiple station ownership were reinstated, without the need to  bring in a bunch of schleppers who can't even raise the modest entrance fees required.  Can you say "red herring?"  I knew you could.

<<The point I was trying to make [with satellite radio] (and obviously did not make well because you failed to see it) is that regulations in place now are directly impacting the amount of competition in the radio marketplace. If more ownership and more competition is what we need for diversity of opinion, then adding on more regulations hardly seems like the way to go. It's kinda like suggesting that one can make a heavy load easier to bear by adding more weight to it.>>

Yeah, but you turned to the satellite radio market for an example, which is a whole different ball of wax - -as I understand it, limited by satellite system access, capital investment required and possibly other factors.  It's just a different field, not studied by the study that we were referring to and basically a comparison of apples to oranges.  I don't know much about it.  I'm not prepared to argue whether or not more businesses should be allowed to compete with XM and Sirius because I don't know on what basis only those two were approved and in fact I don't even know if other applicants were rejected, or if so, why.  I feel I've got enough material from the non-satellite world to argue for or against regulations that would diversify or broaden station ownership.

[Michael Tee]

<<Good thing we have the likes of Tee to tell us all how we're to think and what opinions we must listen to, or we all must be morons, and need the Government to correct that egregious problem>>



If sirs goes into one restaurant and orders a hamburger and it comes with bottles of ketchup, ketchup and ketchup, sirs probably would have no problem with that because he's a guy who likes his ketchup.  The other customers (who sirs really doesn't give a shit about anyway) might not like it all that much.

If sirs goes into another restaurant and his burger comes with a jar of relish, a bottle of ketchup and a bottle of mustard, sirs will be mightily offended because somehow THAT restaurateur is telling him what to put on his burger.

If sirs' town only permitted two restaurants to operate, sirs would go to the ketchup restaurant, the one that "doesn't try to tell him what to put on his burger," and eat burger with ketchup to his heart's content.  If the town council then decided that it could issue ten more restaurant licences, and appointed a Commissioner to award the licences to the various applicants, sirs would have no problem with the Commissioner handing out all the licences to the ketchup guy - - why shouldn't one guy own all the licensed restaurants in the town?  But the liberals in town might want more people to hold the licences - -why not give out the licences to 10 new guys?  Some of them might be ketchup freaks but some would surely want to also offer - - with or without ketchup - - a broader choice of condiments.  sirs would say no:  more licence holders means restaurants which don't offer a ketchup-only "choice."  Such a policy would amount to "telling us what to put on our burgers."

THAT is the crazy world of fruit-bat conservative logic, which sirs has once again allowed us to look into.

Somehow, ensuring a CHOICE amongst different opinions is bad; in sirs' twisted mind, it is identical to "telling us all how we're to think."   BUT, permitting the ultra-rich to buy many stations so that only ONE viewpoint is presented to the public, in sirs' twisted mind is good, because nobody is being TOLD how to think, they're only being offered one opinion to think about.

One day, sirs will explain to us all how promoting a diversity of opinions broadcast over the public airwaves rather than a uniformity of opinion, by allotting only one station to each owner, somehow amounts to telling people how to think, when in fact nobody is even telling the individual station owners what to broadcast.  But I expect that will take some time.

[sirs]

Disregarding for the moment Tee's completely irrational fetish of ketchup & restaurants, Prince pretty much nailed Tee's soft spot yet again, when he helped expose how basically the whole concept (to Tee), is the idea of regulating radio to the point that more LW rantings are listened to.  It's sad when the left has to resort to hatred and Bush bashing as it's sole substance to talk radio.  No wonder Air America could never get an audience, despite the millions of money it was afforded to start up, the wall to wall PR campaigns, and name recognition of many of its hosts.  People just didn't want to listen to their spewings, so it's ratings tanked. 

So what's left is to push bogus regulations to mandate people listen to it, or else they can't listen to what they want.  Which ironically has ZIP to do with who owns the stations, or how many watts the station has to use

[Michael Tee]

<<Disregarding for the moment Tee's completely irrational fetish of ketchup & restaurants, Prince pretty much nailed Tee's soft spot yet again . . . >>

That's hilarious.  If anything was nailed, it was your ass when I came up with the restaurant and ketchup analogy.  How you turned that  into a fetish is something we'll have to ask your psychiatrist about.

<< . . .  when he helped expose how basically the whole concept (to Tee), is the idea of regulating radio to the point that more LW rantings are listened to. >>

Basically when the regulations allow more station owners into the game to promote a diversity of opinion.

<< It's sad when the left has to resort to hatred and Bush bashing as it's sole substance to talk radio.  >>

What they should really get behind is the "President's" sole right to define torture so that he can place himself above the law.  Or more warfare, only 3500 Americans have been killed to date in Iraq, I'm sure we can do better than that.>>

<<  No wonder Air America could never get an audience, despite the millions of money it was afforded to start up, the wall to wall PR campaigns, and name recognition of many of its hosts.  People just didn't want to listen to their spewings, so it's ratings tanked. >>

Funny how the study never found that Air America's performance was the reason for right-wing domination over talk radio.  Funny how they put it down to concentration of ownership caused by deregulation.  I guess all those listeners who before deregulation were listening to both kinds of talk radio suddenly decided spontaneously they only wanted the right-wing kind of talk after deregulation.  Just one huge coincidence I guess.  sirs knows that.  The study just isn't as smart as sirs.  They foolishly and ignorantly put the problem down to deregulation and a concentration of ownership.  But that's because they failed to study the problem as intensively as sirs.

<<So what's left is to push bogus regulations to mandate people listen to it . . . >>

Neat trick since the regulations won't tell anyone what to listen to, they'll just place some limits on how many stations one man or one corporation can own.

<< . . . or else they can't listen to what they want.  >>

Wrong again

<<Which ironically has ZIP to do with who owns the stations, or how many watts the station has to use>>

Yeah, funny, the study concluded that it has EVERYTHING to do with who owns the stations, but sirs knows better.  sirs does his own studies.  sirs is his own expert.

[Universe Prince]

Your point was that government regulation was not necessary to prevent ten guys broadcasting on the same frequency because you don't have ten guys trying to occupy the same plot of land.

No. My point was that government selling licenses was not necessary to have regulations in place to protect a radio station's use of a a particular frequency. Hence the comparison to buying land and to trademarks.

<<No, the government does not have to do it [register trademarks and enforce registered trademark rights against infringement.] That just happens to be the system we have set in place.>>

And by some extraordinary coincidence, that just happens to be the system used by every other country on the face of the earth to protect trademark rights.  Nobody else on this planet seems to have found an alternative system.

Aw geez. I guess that means there isn't one. You'd think someone would have come up with a way for people to handle things without always using the government.

<<Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I did not say there could not be a role for government. Pay attention. >>

Oh, I saw it alright.  What I didn't see was any connection between that and the licensing of various broadcast frequencies to various individuals.  I guess I missed the part where you told us what the government's role could be in avoiding different guys all broadcasting on the same frequency.

Was the mention of buying land and trademarks too subtle? I didn't intend it to be subtle. I figured it was pretty obvious.

<<Can you say strawman? I knew you could.>>


Not only say it, but with an apology too - - PROVIDED you can show me where you already explained how the government or anyone else proposed to stop ten guys broadcasting on the same frequency without a licensing system in place.

It would be a strawman regardless because you were ranting against something no one had proposed and charging me with advocating it.

Your argument here is really disingenuous.  It's as if I had suggested that removing high levels of arsenic from the public water supply might be good for public health, and you had responded, "Talking about the public health sounds nice, but it is not an objective standard.

No. Because the health of individuals is something that can be observed and to a degree counted. We can know when illness rates are rising or life spans decreasing, et cetera. The "common good" is, on the other hand almost entirely subjective.

What you are really saying is

You seem to have a very poor handle on what I'm really saying. I say this because you seem to keep getting it wrong.

I believe - - and I think a huge consensus of others believe as well - - that in any public medium, a trend towards a diversity of opinion is more desirable than a trend towards uniformity of opinion.  And NOBODY has to nail down a perfect and exhaustive definition of the common interest or the common good before coming to such a conclusion.

Of course. On the other hand, that is really just an opinion. So yes, no one has to nail down a single definition of the common good to have an opinion. Determining what government action should be, however, really should have some objective standards better than the common good.

So the fact that a conservative owner did once or twice try to make a few bucks that way in no way vitiates its final conclusions, which are about the overall effect of the concentration of ownership, not about each and every single thing that happened since the deregulation.

Actually, it does. It indicates that the problem is a marketplace issue, not an ownership issue.

What evidence do you see that indicates to you that they are not only attempting to make money but also promote their own pro-capitalist, right-wing views?

That isn't what I said. So I'm not going to defend it. The evidence I see that radio station owners looking for what makes money and not attempting to force everyone to listen to only right-wing hosts is that 1) station owners have tried to put liberal talk-show on the air in hope it would make them some money and 2) that rather than a consolidation of formats in radio as a whole, there are more now than ever.

I take it at face value, first because it makes perfect sense.

We'll come back to that.

if the stations blanket an area so that one man controls all the broadcasting, the motive to profit by varying the message might not be there, especially given the relative buying power of the rich and conservative over the poor and liberal.  What's the good of increasing listener share another 20% if that 20% can't buy the luxury autos, concert tickets or whatever the station's advertising money comes from?

You mean like local discount furniture store sales? Or maybe you mean like local hardware stores. I listen to the local talk radio station frequently. Yes, there are ads for cars, but usually not luxury cars. And there are other adds for restaurants and hardware stores and local stores. So I'm doubting the whole "no profit in advertising to liberals" bit. Or don't liberals ever buy anything?

<<Other evidence I have looked at suggests that there are in fact more varied formats in radio now than ever before. >>

So what?  We're talking diversity of opinion, not diversity of format.

Yes, but it goes to the issue of radio station owners shying away from diversity. Obviously when they believe there is money to be made, they are willing to allow diversity. I have yet to see a single reason to believe this is not so in regard to talk radio.

Yeah.  Because it does not accord with your own preconceptions.

I suggest that you accepting the study at face value "because it makes perfect sense" is because it does accord with your own preconceptions.

<<No, but you were going on about deregulation as if somehow radio station owners were free to do anything.>>

I certainly was not and I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion.  Any fucking idiot would have to know that the broadcast industry is very heavily regulated.  Furthermore, it's completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not concentration of ownership leads to greater uniformity of opinion.

But it is relevant to the issue of whether regulation is the the solution or part of the problem.

in the real world, where viable stations are more than 100 watts.  What kind of diversity are you going to achieve if disaffected hippies and college students can broadcast all they like on 20-watt stations only to be swamped by mega-station chains owned by billionaires?  We are talking about diversity of opinion among the stations that dominate the market, that people are actually listening to.

So you're already placing limits on the diversity you want to see. And apparently ignoring that the reason people listen to those larger stations and why those stations can afford to be larger is because they are providing people with the people will listen to in greater numbers.

It's a complex field and if he can't take the heat he'd better stay out of the kitchen.  If he's not prepared with some backup cash and/or credit then he's got no business playing in the big leagues with the big boys.  He'll vanish soon enough and his opinions with him.  Better to give the franchise to someone who knows how to make good use of it in the first place.

Interesting that you think the market is actually good for something. And also interesting that you think it's okay for some people to fail in the marketplace. But this, along with your other comments, leads me to think you want the benefits of the marketplace without actually allowing the marketplace to do its jobs.

There are already enough qualified owners or potential owners to assure diversity if the restrictions on multiple station ownership were reinstated, without the need to  bring in a bunch of schleppers who can't even raise the modest entrance fees required.  Can you say "red herring?"  I knew you could.

Then why aren't they in the market place now?

Yeah, but you turned to the satellite radio market for an example, which is a whole different ball of wax

Yet it is part of the radio marketplace. Which is why the NAB is trying to limit it, not unlike the way AM station owners tried to limit FM radio once upon a time. The point being that there are regulations limiting entry into competition in radio. I suppose a secondary point is that there are other ways to address competition in radio besides trying to regulate it.

And I've now spent too much time on this. I'm done.

[_JS]

Some may be poor, but there certainly are novels that are philosophic, or philosophic novels. To limit philosophic discourse to the rigidly reined treatisee or shorter professional essay artificially circumscribes the field. Can a novel deal effectively, either "completely" or partly, with a given philosophic topic: of course! It just may take a double dose of talent, philosophic and literary-artistic. The analogy I favor would be to say that Christ's or St. Paul's theology, revealed extensively in the lives they lived in addition to the words they uttered, shouldn't have to be packaged in a particular literary/professional genre to attain respectability. Going to the far extreme, for example, Patton's miliary philosophy, though he wrote little, if any, is richly portrayed in the unfolding of his life itself: the point being life, like art, can embody a discernible philosophy at times matching in seriousness and rigor the formal discipline of philosophy itself.

Actually, I stand completely corrected by Domer and Prince.

Well, personally corrected. I myself prefer a novel any day of the week over the extremely dry works of philosophy that have been written (with a few exceptions). I mean, if you ever need sleep, just start reading Hegel's Phenomenology of the Mind. I am not sure that a duller collection of words exists on page, though a few economists have tried.

To be taken as a serious philosopher in academia, one would not do well in writing novels. Hence, Nietzsche is not considered much more than a pseudo-philosopher. Ayn Rand is simply not considered anymore than Aldous Huxley would be. Plato gets away with it (The Republic) but he makes up for that elsewhere.

For me, Hamlet is probably the greatest work of literature in the English language. There is a lot to consider within its lines. Yet, I'm not sure one could call it "philosophy." An interesting topic really.

As for Nietzsche and Rand, I find it interesting that those were the first two mentioned. Their "philosophies" are similar...or really, Rand's springs from Nietzsche, though with much less impact. I think both would be proud of modern culture in many ways.

[sirs]

Nothing fair about Fairness Doctrine
House backs away from effort to reimpose foolish, counterproductive effort to balance broadcast speech.
An Orange County Register editorial

We chose the Fourth of July to celebrate free speech; namely, the House of Representatives' 309-115 vote last week to prohibit funds from being spent by the Federal Communications Commission to re-impose the so-called Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.

Whenever the government wants to regulate anything, let alone anything as precious as free speech, beware. And be particularly concerned whenever the government describes its motive as an attempt at "fairness."

Although the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned in 1987 by the Reagan administration, the suggestion that authoritarian control be reinstituted over broadcast speech recently moved from the fringe of political zealots and was taken up by senior Washington Democrats, including our own Sen. Dianne Feinstein, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others, including former presidential candidate John Kerry.

Some liberal politicians are irked by the popularity of conservative radio talk shows. And the failure of left-leaning programming, such as Air America Radio, to gain a significant following no doubt exacerbates their frustration. These factors may have moved Sen. Feinstein to complain June 24 on Fox News, according to Broadcasting & Cable Magazine, that talk radio is one-sided and "explosive ? t pushes people, I think, to extreme views without a lot of information."

On a day when we celebrate the freedoms secured for us more than two centuries ago, we also should take a moment to celebrate this lopsided vote protecting one of the most fundamental of our freedoms from the stifling hand of government censors. Any time elected representatives opt by nearly a three-to-one margin to preserve freedom rather than come down on the side of more government power, it's cause to celebrate.

The Fairness Doctrine was intended to balance political speech on the airwaves, growing out "of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio stations being submitted [in the 1930s and '40s]and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective," according to the Museum of Broadcast Communications. "Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate."

But such an altruistic motive is as futile as it is dangerous; don't confuse the goal with what actually happened. How much of what is said is enough? How many sides are there to an argument? Must a conservative talk host have a liberal co-host? Do radio callers who disagree with talk show hosts count as "the other side?" Must every station with four conservative talk shows add four liberal talk shows? Who decides?

In fact, as columnist Nat Hentoff wrote in the book "Ethics and the Press," the doctrine had more of a chilling effect on speech than an illuminating one ? he cited numerous examples of broadcasters that changed or limited their programming rather than deal with the full scope of controversy. Certainly, smaller stations were constrained financially.

Where freedom of speech and freedom of the press is honored, the public marketplace decides. Not politicians, and certainly not bureaucrats at the FCC. In a national market that features more than 3,000 radio station owners, to say nothing of hundreds of cable TV stations, satellite radio and the Internet, the public has plenty of competing options to hear competing points of view. Join us in celebrating this independence from government control, in part insured by Indiana Rep. Mike Spence's approved amendment to the Financial Services Appropriation Bill.


Article

[sirs]