DescentBB

Having tried and failed with Air America, it seems the only way the incompetent liberal mindset can compete with conservative talk radio is to re-instate the old Fairness Doctrine. Sure the concept on its face sounds good, i.e. for every point of few, a radio station would have to give equal time to the opposing view. The problem is, who would listen to three hours of Bill Maher in rebutal of Rush Limbaugh. Judging from Air America, not too many and thus no revenue from ad sponsors. So faced with a three hour black hole of revenue, the radio station hosting Rush would simply drop him and plug in something else.
Now I know there are some here that would say getting Mr Limbaugh and all the other conservative commentators off the radio airwaves is a good thing, but before you jump up and down in a orgy of rightous revelry, consider this. Ceasar Chavez closed down certain of his countries radio and tv stations simply because they were not promoting his socialist form of government. Do we want that here? I notice the call from the left for \"fairness\" is targeted primarily at radio. Does this mean that the taxpayer supported program NPR will also be part of the doctrine? How about TV programing? Or Newspapers? I suspect what the politicians who favor the re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine really want is to gene taylor it for only AM radio. So like their socialist compadre down south, when faced with a growling guard dog...muzzle it.

Life isnt fair get over it.

the last time I checked this was a free market society. if Liberal radio can't cut it then tough. the democrats are trying to legislate thought police. a majority of America doesn't either beleieve or agree with the left wing dribble. so lets mandate laws that require them to.

Woodie, can you put that in \"layman ignorant foreigner's terms\". Are you saying that, in the States you can't voice an opinion on the radio, without having a counter argument of exactly the same air time?

Mr. Bush & Co. have long implemented \"thought police\" and even deprived U.S. American citizens of their civil rights to some degree, using the fear of terrorism they so happily fuel over and over to intimidate U.S. Americans so that they will agree to just everything that is presented to them for sake of \"security\". It's just that U.S. American conservatives apparently need to cling so desperately to their view of the world for the sake of giving them at least that little bit of security that they are willing to accept every lie that is served to them under the flag of \"patriotism\" and \"serving the country\" - even if it really isn't. You are just too afraid to open your eyes. And if you aren't, someone waves the \"commie\" and \"leftist liberals\" flags, stimulating the Pavlov reflexes conservative propaganda has created in you for so many years, and you rush back under big brother's wide mantle. And no, I am not leftist at all, I am rather conservative. It's just that you conservative guys start to foam from your mouths at every occasion something you deem \"leftist\" crosses your way instead of starting to soberly watch the world around you and draw sound conclusions.

Flabby Chick wrote:Woodie, can you put that in "layman ignorant foreigner's terms". Are you saying that, in the States you can't voice an opinion on the radio, without having a counter argument of exactly the same air time?

At one time we did but such practices were stopped back in the 80's. Originally in the late 40's the Fairness Doctrine was inacted as there were so few radio stations that the govt did not one point of view dominating the airwaves.
In the 80's it was decided that there were now so many radio and t.v. stations that no one viewpoint could dominate as there was always a station that would give a differing view. The Fairness Doctrine was then terminated by the FCC.
Shift forward 20 years and we have one segment of our airwaves that expouses conservatism. Mind you there are other outlets such as NPR radio (FM), cable news like MSNBC, prime time news like ABC, NBC, CBS and major newspapers like the New York Times that all have a liberal slant. No one seems to have a problem with them. Yet the liberal democrats now are positioning themselves to say conservative talk radio (AM) is not "Fair" (read critical) to the liberal democratic philosophy.
The real funny part is most of the major conservative talk jocks are just as critical towards republican when the situation warrants (illegal immigration is a good case in point).
So to answer you question FC, no but forces are afoot to bring it back.

Diedel wrote:Mr. Bush & Co. have long implemented "thought police" and even deprived U.S. American citizens of their civil rights to some degree, using the fear of terrorism they so happily fuel over and over to intimidate U.S. Americans so that they will agree to just everything that is presented to them for sake of "security".

Care to give specifics or are you just toeing the line the liberal blogs want you to believe?

Diedel wrote:Mr. Bush & Co. have long implemented "thought police" and even deprived U.S. American citizens of their civil rights to some degree,

Actually, I agree with you. But it doesn't have anything to do with the Fairness doctrine in this case. The Fairness doctrine is thought control coming from the left, not the right.

If conservatives want to listen to very biased talk shows, so what? Liberals like programing that is biased in THEIR direction. It's the Market.

I flip back and forth between AM conservative talk shows and NPR on the radio. That gives me a fairly balanced, or at least equally imbalanced, coverage.

I love how everyone likes to say \"both sides of the issue\". If an \"issue\" only has two sides it must be paper-thin...

Thought police? Nah. It's just that Rupert Murdoch and his like-minded compadres have very loud voices (and own a lot of radio stations).

One real problem is media consolidation. To use radio as an example: there are three companies which own about 90% of the radio market: Clear Channel, CBS Radio (formerly Infinity Broadcasting), and Westwood One. They've sufficiently divided up the market (thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996) such that in almost all small markets, and in many large markets, you can't find a station that's not owned by one of those three companies.

There is nothing holding these companies accountable for the spin they put on their news updates.

woodchip: can you honestly say with a straight face that this administration has not engaged in fear-mongering to advance its agenda, legal or moral? Or will you just toe the line the conservative blogs want you to believe?

I only listen to conservative talk radio. surprise!

like kilarin, i don't care that radio is primarily conservative. it bothers me that conservative hosts never, i repeat never allow themselves to have a genuine debate with callers who question their perspective. however, this is entertainment to me - like watching a magician skilled at sleight of hand or a clever snake oil salesman. they actually follow a pretty simple formula:

1. caller airs an objection or states a point of view with which the host disagrees.

2. host asks a question that has nothing to do with the issue.

3. caller is at once baffled since the question has no relevance and much mental gear-stripping ensues as the caller tries to either answer or get the host back on topic.

4. the host angrily accuses the caller of being evasive/non cooperative, says something derogotory to the caller, and hangs up. The Aristocrats!

Now here I am referring to specific hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mike Gallagher, and (my favorite) Michael Savage. But most use this same transparent tactic. I don't listen to Rush because he is a stammering idiot with NOTHING to offer.

Gallagher is a tremendous boob who has never uttered a true or meaningful statement on the air. Unlike the others, he is too stupid to even consider the flaws in his thinking. Though similar to Rush in his blockheaded inanity, at least, unlike Rush, he can complete a sentence without nearly choking on his own tongue.

Laura Ingraham reminds me of all the a-hole cheerleaders or jocks I watched pick on the meek kids in highschool. She's just mean spirited and completely unscrupulous.

Savage is real piece of work. The guy is smart and extremely entertaining, but some of his positions would make the Fuhrer proud (like hanging ACLU lawyers from lampposts. That'll teach 'em!).

Just to be totally fair...I can't stand Air America because with one exception it's either booring, or hysterical and desparate. Announcers like Randi Rhodes and Jeanine Garrafallo (sp?) fall into the latter group and thereby give honest liberals a bad name. Lately they've lost most of the limited talent they had and are left with no-name hosts who have absolutely nothing interesting to say. [edit]: the exception was Jerry Springer. Yeah that Jerry Springer. Agree or disagree with him, he always expressed himself in a civil manner to those who disagreed with him on the air. He also gave them a real chance to express their opinions unlike most liberal hosts and like NONE of the conservatives.

Having said all this, I would point out to Woodchip that Air America's failures have nothing to do with them being liberals. Liberals tend to be way more successful and entertaining on television than any conservatives (see Daily Show, Colbert Report for instance). Radio is just not where the liberal audience hangs out. Consider also that the most successful Internet communities, places like Fark, Something Awful, and even Wikipedia - are all hotbeds of liberalism. So, let the kooks on the right have the radio, they apparently need it since they are the ones who can't find an audience in other media.

woodchip wrote:Care to give specifics or are you just toeing the line the liberal blogs want you to believe?

I almost never have read a blog - they are too boring and imho too limited in their view.

I cannot give you a concrete case for the simple reason that it's a while back that I have read about them and I don't remember them well enough. But how about this stuff where people can be detained w/o telling them why, w/o access to a lawyer, w/o contact to relatives and friends, for an unlimited time if there is a suspicion they might be part of a terrorist conspiracy? There doesn't even have to be a proof. This is so much against your constitution and its spirit that it is almost a joke. Afaik such treatment has been applied to people. Such stuff is 100% a method of police states (I am not saying this is making the U.S. of A. a police state, don't misunderstand me). Illegally holding "hostile fighters" captive (and inventing this nonsense term just to avoid being bound to the Geneva convention), torturing some of them to death - what has that to do with a constitutional state? Nothing. These things have been justified and achieved by constantly fueling a fear of terrorism. How about that huge scandal where literally millions of Americans had been wiretapped?

Is that all "liberal drivel and propaganda"?

What about the U.S. of A. being brought from an excess in the state household to the most monumental debt in the history of the country? What about relieving tax load for people who are richer than rich, and at the same time making life more miserable for poor people? How about reducing health care and pensions for retired soldiers, your "boys" you are glorifying so much for giving their lives for the "best of their country"?

You have been deceived, and have been fed with the tale of contributing to the glory of your nations and thus getting somewhat glorious yourselves, when all you really are is cannonfodder and work force for a minority gathering more riches and influence.

I know this sounds very communist, but I am not at all a communist. I do not believe everybody should be equal and have equal possessions. I believe that those who work hard and bear a lot of responsibility should earn the fruit of it. But the U.S. American form of capitalism is completely out of whack and an expression of gross and brutal selfishness - and it is coming more and more to Europe. Money justifies everything. People tend to forget more and more that they are human beings, and as such member of a culture they need to thrive. During the previous two centuries, the boss of a company had some understanding of himself comparable to being a good father. He cared about his nation and his workers. This changed as wealth and control over companies got more and more abstract through the spreading of shares.

Let me share a real disgusting example of this insane greed: In Germany, building a house is very expensive. So usually people take up a huge credit and pay it back over 30 years (with a lot of interest). Normally, the credit's interest is fixed for 10 years, and then you either have to pay it back or negotiate another one. Most people go for the latter, this is common practise and when a bank gives a house building credit they already know it will happen that way, and if people's finances are sound, this is none of a problem.

Now an American company has started to buy small banks to make quick money: Whenever such a (sound) house credit is callable, they do not give a new credit, but force the people to pay the credit back. People that had in good faith and according to the way it is commonly handled here taken that credit from that bank that now has changed ownership, and who, if all had gone well would have paid the house and spent their lives in their hard earned and built property. Such people simply get ruined. They are forced to sell the house - usually under value, therefore still being left with debt - and have to rent an apartment again. The companies doing this already have insane amounts of money, and the people investing in them give a flying ★■◆● about the lives they ruin, as long as they increase their wealth.

That is American capitalism, and in my eyes it is straight from the pit of hell. The owners and share holders of these companies should go to jail forever, if it was after me.

The problem with many U.S. American (it is tedious to write it that way, but I want to avoid stupid remarks about America being a continent - actually two - etc.) conservatives is that you tend to twist everything so that it fits to your view of the world, and are quick to ignore simple facts and truths. Mr. Bush claims to be a Christian. Does he act like one? It is a proven fact that he has lied to your entire nation. Still, Christians support him, just because he says (pretends) to be one, too. That's pretty irreal.

Considering this thread is titled \"fairness doctrine\", I'm seeing surprisingly little discussion of the \"fairness doctrine\" and surprisingly much discussion of lots of completely unrelated issues. You can start a new thread to talk about Capitalism, why America sucks, Bush, blogs, and so on. Please at least try to keep this one on topic.

(stupid bug...)

The \"fairness doctrine\" basically says, radio stations that air a right-wing blowhard have to give the same amount of time to a left-wing blowhard. It would kinda make sense back in the 40's, when average people's media access was often limited to one or two stations, that the government would want to make sure people had access to multiple viewpoints. But nowadays, between radio, broadcast/cable/dish TV, newspapers, the internet, and people standing around the water cooler, everybody has access to a broad variety of views. Why force specific broadcast entities to try to cover the whole spectrum?

In a practical sense: who exactly decides what's \"fair and balanced\", and do we trust the government to be any better than Fox News on that front? What if we had a neocon and a classical conservative on presenting \"opposing\" viewpoints? What if we had a socialist and a moderate Democrat? Or would the \"fairness doctrine\" pretty much just entrench the two-party system even further, forcing stations to have a party-line Republican and a party-line Democrat face off all the time?

It's a bad law. I'm glad it got shot down.

Lothar,

true. But the initial post contained a fair deal of general ranting towards the \"liberals\".

I agree that this fairness doctrine probably was complete rubbish. It might make sense if applied to all media if their majority were in the hands of people with a strong political tendency who would suppress airing of different views. I doubt this is the case in the U.S. of A. though (although I don't know).

Diedel wrote:Lothar,

true. But the initial post contained a fair deal of general ranting towards the "liberals".

Diedel, there is one sentence where I refer specifically to "Liberals":

"I notice the call from the left for "fairness" is targeted primarily at radio."

Please try to read with your mind and not your emotions.

The Fairness Doctrine "is" a ploy by the democrats to remove a thorn in their side. It is funny that at one time, with the advent of cable tv, fm radio and the internet, AM radio was predicted to become extinct as a medium. What looks bad for the liberals is the old cliche about them rings true once again, "Can't compete...legislate".
Having either side of the aisle useing laws to limit free speech is a bad idea. McCain Feingold is another form of controlling freespeech. Political discourse has to be free and open with all sides contributing. Let the electorate determine which message rings the bell best.

Yes, but how you said something about the liberals!

Talk about mind and emotions.

I agree with most of you, I think the \"Fairness Doctrine\" is a load of excrement. Obviously a thinly disguised attempt to shut people up.

Deidel, there's a few issues I wanted you to chew on from your rant (for lack of a better word). I'm not even going to say I'm arguing, because I don't like to argue, this is just an observation as a citizen of the U.S.

Yes, there are some people that get detained unrightfully, though extremely rarely. The last story someone posted on here ranting about this was actually a blunder of the Canadian government, and it turned out the \"torture\" was actually in his home country, and had nothing to do with us. I honestly don't think it's as \"rampant\" as the media would have you believe, though it should never happen.

Wiretappng is a very touchy subject... since I have nothing to hide, it doesn't bother me as much as some people, but like most things, if it's effective in saving lives, then there's at least some argument towards it.

The U.S. debt is astounding. I got nothing there.

Taxes, however, would be fair if everybody paid the same percentage. That way the richer you are, the more you pay. Period.

Huge Companies, however, I loathe. Once a company is no longer owned by a single person, it's driven purely by money for it's existance. The things they will do to keep a profit are frightening. On the other side, I don't think they should pay more taxes than anybody else, and I know a lot of people and companies who give to charities directly, because they don't trust that the government will spend it wisely (which is also true).

Anyway, just a few things for you to chew on. Have a great day!

Anyway, the real issue of fairness in media is meant to be addressed by laws preventing overconsolidation of media such that just one or two companies control all the media outlets (TV, radio, newspapers) in a market. Unfortunately, those protections have been under constant threat as corporate capitalism tends to trump the interests of the little guy, and the FCC has a nasty capitulation streak.

the media giants have a revolving door situation with FCC chair positions. All the FCC chairs have ties with the media giants, that's why they always rule in their favour.

I recall the head of the FCC at the time of the AOL-Time-Warner merger was an ex-Warner director, or something of this nature. I call that criminal, they call it business as usual.