The more of these crazy things they spent time on, the less damage they can do.

I say we keep religious programming off the public airwaves, generally. Let 'em rent cable time.

Keep whining about a non-existent piece of legislation. It's not happening, it's not going to happen, it never will happen. I'll change my middle name to Cheney if it does.

The Fairness Doctrine is not hiding under your bed. It's not lurking in your closet. Now have a drink of water and go to sleep. Adults are trying to run the country and you know how cranky you are when you don't get enough sleep.

The concept of a 'fairness' in programming is completely retarded and follows the exact same philosophy of "Teach the Controversy" that these religious folks push around. It's stupid bullshiat, I think we can all agree.

That said;



These people make it sound like the SS are knocking on their door.

Wut's this "Fairness Doctorine?" A mouthwash? Couldn't be sure, but TFA was full of Whaarrgarbl.

If it pisses off the far right, it can't be all that bad.

Who's afraid of a little tiny doctor?

Sleeping Monkey: If it pisses off the far right, it can't be all that bad.

Yes, because "if the other side doesn't like it, I support it" is an intelligent political philosophy, and there's no way that kind of thinking can come back to bite you in the ass.

Time to step up production of crosses. I'm also contributing heavily to funds for increasing fertility in lions.

Everything I've wanted to say has already been said.

I see no reason why the government should be involved in content regulation at all- be it for "decency" or "fairness". Just divy up theradio spectrum into specific frequencies and then let broadcast rights trade freely among broadcasters. There's no reason for the government to do anything more than stop interference with transmissions.

"Free" market AM radio model: one group (ie wealthy "conservatives") owns all the air time on high powered transmitters.

Fairness Doctrine: all groups have some access to air time on the same power levels on the same frequency.

Censorship: some viewpoints are totally denied access to air time.

So no, subby. The Fairness Doctrine is not censorship. The current model is. You folks may own the transmitter, but the American people own the frequency.

Churchill2004: Just divy up theradio spectrum into specific frequencies and then let broadcast rights trade freely among broadcasters.

In other words let's only let people who are rich enough to buy a transmitter have access to the spectrum. Yeah that sounds good.

Not only is it censorship, it is hilarious to boot.

Sleeping Monkey: If it pisses off the far right, it can't be all that bad.

The doctors didn't get all of that brain tumor, did they?

So would this break up regional media monopolies like Clear Channel?

Is this the type of issue where the corporations who would be affected by this whipping up sympathy from the right wing?

It all sounds really fishy to me.

HansensDisease: "Free" market AM radio model: one group (ie wealthy "conservatives") owns all the air time on high powered transmitters

No, the time is generally owned by huge mega-corporations that don't give a shiat what the political talk shows are spouting as long as it gets ratings. And for whatever reason, talk radio listeners are much more eager to listen to Republican blowhards like Limbaugh than their leftist counterparts.

HansensDisease: Fairness Doctrine: all groups have some access to air time on the same power levels on the same frequency

Bullshiat. Who gets to decide who the "fair" counterpoint to Limbaugh is? An Obama apologist or an anarchist? The fact is that ideas are not binary- there is no one matching "fair" opposing view for every single statement, and placing the government in the role of what would soon devlove into dividing the whole marketplace of ideas into "left" and "right" (and keeping the two "balanced"). Also, how do you decide what views need to be "balanced" and which don't? Do you have to have a Holocaust denier on every time you have a documentary about a concentration camp?

The fact is that the government picking certain viewpoints for airtime- what you're advocating- inherently involves the government rejecting certain viewpoints. The so-called Fairness Doctrine is censorship, and there's no way around it.

HansensDisease: You folks may own the transmitter, but the American people own the frequency

Why?

Remember kids, the media is completely dominated by liberals, but somehow the Fairness Doctrine will put more liberals on the air.

/Thinks it's a stupid law, but I do enjoy seeing neocons getting butthurt.

HansensDisease: In other words let's only let people who are rich enough to buy a transmitter have access to the spectrum. Yeah that sounds good

You have to have a lot of money to buy expensive things like radio transmitters and FCC bureaucrats.


Neither any part of the status quo nor any hypothetical "Fairness Doctrine" will change the fact that it takes money to run a radio station and/or show. Not necessarily rich- groups of non-rich people can and do round up enough money to launch such endeavors all the time- but it will never be cheap, much less "free".

Churchill2004: HansensDisease: "Free" market AM radio model: one group (ie wealthy "conservatives") owns all the air time on high powered transmitters

No, the time is generally owned by huge mega-corporations that don't give a shiat what the political talk shows are spouting as long as it gets ratings. And for whatever reason, talk radio listeners are much more eager to listen to Republican blowhards like Limbaugh than their leftist counterparts.

/snip



Liberals have NPR, that's why the concept of Air America just seems so stupid to me 90% of their target market are loyal NPR listeners.

If you wanted to start a new conservative talk radio program, you just need a find a slot where you're not going up against Rush and whomever else has a big audience, but if you want to do liberal political commentary you're stuck trying to program against NPRs arts coverage or something.

Churchill2004: what the political talk shows are spouting

Which always seems to benefit the interests of large corporations. Odd isn't it?

Bullshiat. Who gets to decide who the "fair" counterpoint to Limbaugh is?

They basically put you on when its convenient to them. You get 5 minutes at most. You don't get a monopoly on those 5 minutes in perpetuity. If no-one requests time there isn't automatically a five minute "liberal" spot on at 3 AM.

THAT's how the Fairness Doctrine works. It's not a guaranteed time slot or a one-for-one ratio of access to air time. Anyone who's told you otherwise is either lying or wasn't alive when it was in effect.

the American people own the frequency

Why?

I hope you're joking. Corporations did not "invent" radio waves. They can't produce more of them, unlike a printing press. Because of physics, stations on the same frequency interfere with each other, limiting the usage of the frequency by one signal at a time. Such a transmission also takes a wide swath of adjacent frequencies, also due to physics.

Radio frequencies are licensed such that they be used in the public interest by the FCC. If you think the public interest only consists of rich fat guys yelling at you 24/7/365, too freaking bad. Because I don't and I'm also the public.

bimalc: Liberals have NPR, that's why the concept of Air America just seems so stupid to me 90% of their target market are loyal NPR listeners.

That's certainly part of it. NPR isn't overtly political, but it's just silly to deny that they don't have a general leftward tilt. Even more importantly, though, (taxpayer-subsidized!) NPR does soak up a lot of the market demand that could otherwise perhaps be filled by some kind of liberal Limbaugh. Or maybe there just aren't that many people out there who want a liberal Limbaugh. No one can really say for sure, and the only way to find out is to let people listen to whatever they want.


AM/FM Radio isn't really all that different from any other medium, including its own unique quirks and biases in its consumer base. Certain mediums, like talk radio, tend to attract people of a certain socioeconomic (and, correspondingly, political) bent. Who gives a rat's ass if talk radio leans right and newspapers lean left? Just accept it and move on with your life- those biases largely reflect the biases of consumers much more than any nefarious scheme by the evil rich people to control the political discourse. The fact that Congress decided to make a power-grab at content regulation when they decreed "public ownership" of any broadcasts that could be received for free doesn't really make the economics or free speech principles of broadcast radio is all that different from other media that Americans (and American courts) would rightly be horrified if Congress started imposing content regulation.

Churchill2004: You have to have a lot of money to buy expensive things like radio transmitters and FCC bureaucrats.

In your model. Yes. In mine the corporations are forced to give a minimal amount of access to the people who actually own the airwaves.

bimalc: If you wanted to start a new conservative talk radio program, you just need a find a slot where you're not going up against Rush and whomever else has a big audience

So only rich people have the right to speak, you're saying. Screw you.

Do people tune in to radio to get information, or to hear reinforcement of what they already believe ?

It's not like this matters anyway.

HansensDisease: Which always seems to benefit the interests of large corporations. Odd isn't it?

Only if you make the dubious assumption that "huge corporations" have more interest in influencing the government indirectly through the means of talk radio hosts that mostly talk about things that have nothing to do with said "huge corporations", than they do in actually making a profit off of the radio show they're paying for.


Though I won't deny at all that the current system favors big corporations. Most government control schemes do- it's a lot easier for the big guys to buy off or otherwise influence the state, which is another reason why the state at the very least shouldn't be making content-based decisions.

HansensDisease: They basically put you on when its convenient to them. You get 5 minutes at most. You don't get a monopoly on those 5 minutes in perpetuity. If no-one requests time there isn't automatically a five minute "liberal" spot on at 3 AM

Then instead of heavy-handed and discourse-choking, it would be arbitrary and pointless. I still don't see the benefit.


HansensDisease: THAT's how the Fairness Doctrine works. It's not a guaranteed time slot or a one-for-one ratio of access to air time. Anyone who's told you otherwise is either lying or wasn't alive when it was in effect

There have been a number of different proposals, and when it was in effect it was so nebulous and unpredictable that it just scared political talk off the airwaves entirely with the exception of mindlessly inane bland vanilla.


HansensDisease: I hope you're joking. Corporations did not "invent" radio waves.

I know you might fell uncomfortable letting your boogey-man out of you sight, but "corporations" have nothing to do with this.

HansensDisease: They can't produce more of them, unlike a printing press. Because of physics, stations on the same frequency interfere with each other, limiting the usage of the frequency by one signal at a time. Such a transmission also takes a wide swath of adjacent frequencies, also due to physics

None of that it at all incompatible with my suggestion, which left intact the idea of pre-set frequencies that only one person could transmit over at a time, with the government punishing interference.


HansensDisease: Radio frequencies are licensed such that they be used in the public interest by the FCC. If you think the public interest only consists of rich fat guys yelling at you 24/7/365, too freaking bad. Because I don't and I'm also the public

And here is the complete non sequitur. You went from "there's a finite amount of radio space" to "the government should push people I don't like off the airwaves". You did not, at all, explain why finite radio space means the government should be making content-based decisions, something that the 1st Amendment rightly prohibits in just about every other aspect of society, including in other examples of government-maintained "public forums".

How the hell is a bunch of insulated (or bribed, which is more likely) beuracrats supposed to determine the "public interest" anyway? What exactly does that even mean? Inevitably it just devolves into "I don't like what they're saying, so they're not in the public interest!", which is exactly what you are doing. This is why the content of political talk radio- just like the content of every other kind of free speech- should be completeletly shielded from government intervention.

Mordant: Do people tune in to radio to get information, or to hear reinforcement of what they already believe ?

It's not like this matters anyway.

I turn it on for information. I also don't listen to any American broadcasters, so take that as you will.

It has not been proposed, yet. Saying it will come? Yes. Courtesy of Sen. Stabaknow (sp)

Churchill2004: Certain mediums

I'm sorry, I can't really take seriously anyone who seriously uses the word "mediums" in a conversation ABOUT MEDIA.

For the most part, the folks who want Christian or "conservative" broadcasting on the radio won't ever be reached anyway. It's like worrying that calculus isn't being taught in kennels.

HansensDisease: In your model. Yes. In mine the corporations are forced to give a minimal amount of access to the people who actually own the airwaves

No, they (and everyone else who has been leased airtime by the government's whim in the first place) are forced to give a few arbitrary minutes to whoever some political hack at the FCC tells them to. And your utopian nonsense about the airwaves being some kind of free public forum remains just as much a fantasy as people continue to listen to whatever they want to as best they can. The most likely result of the "fairness doctrine" is talk radio fleeing en masse to sattelite and online radio while more music fills out the remainder of our already antiquated and mismanaged FM spectrum while AM continues its long, slow slide into oblivion.

cameroncrazy1984: Churchill2004: Certain mediums

I'm sorry, I can't really take seriously anyone who seriously uses the word "mediums" in a conversation ABOUT MEDIA.

Oh get the fark over yourself.

DNRTFA, but since it's WorldNutDaily, I'm going to just go ahead and assume the truth is 180º from whatever it is they're saying.

Churchill2004: cameroncrazy1984: Churchill2004: Certain mediums

I'm sorry, I can't really take seriously anyone who seriously uses the word "mediums" in a conversation ABOUT MEDIA.

Oh get the fark over yourself.

If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation, speak intelligently.

Mordant: For the most part, the folks who want Christian or "conservative" broadcasting on the radio won't ever be reached anyway. It's like worrying that calculus isn't being taught in kennels.

Why not let them have their little fun on the radio station that you don't have to listen to and that they pay to operate while you try to find a liberal radio station that is busy stealing from boys and girls clubs?

There are many frequencies available just sitting there waiting to be used for what ever viewpoint you wish to make. Trying to silence or minimize other people's views is exactly counter to the principles you say you uphold.

In case I wasn't clear, I'll make it clearer. I want whatever YOU want (just for different reasons). Every decision you make for your party is better in the long run for my goals.

Churchill2004: the dubious assumption that "huge corporations"

bullshiat. it's a fact.

few arbitrary minutes to whoever some political hack at the FCC tells them to.

ummmm. no. the FCC had nothing to do with who in particular got on. it's all done locally. the fact that you don't know this tells me where you get your "info"/

I still don't see the benefit.

because you're a corporate stooge. or a sheep. you decide.

"corporations" have nothing to do with this.

bullshiat again.

"the government should push people I don't like off the airwaves".

incorrect. what part of having the station owners still havong access to 99.9 of the transmitter time don't you understand?

How the hell is a bunch of insulated (or bribed, which is more likely) beuracrats supposed to determine the "public interest" anyway?

Wharrrgarble. The station owners decide who gets on when. The FCC doesn't get involved unless petitioned. The petition is denied if the station obviously made an effort.

The most likely result of the "fairness doctrine" is talk radio fleeing en masse to sattelite and online radio

Great. There's your free market. The internet isn't bandwidth-limited. Radiowaves are. They don't belong to you.

cameroncrazy1984: Churchill2004: cameroncrazy1984: Churchill2004: Certain mediums

I'm sorry, I can't really take seriously anyone who seriously uses the word "mediums" in a conversation ABOUT MEDIA.

Oh get the fark over yourself.

If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation, speak intelligently.

Even better- don't be a condescending nitpicking twat. Oooh, I made a grammatical error! Who the hell cares?

Not even that huge of one, given that I was trying to also avoid the collective-noun meaning that has come to be associated with "media" in addition to the plural of medium. And it's a frigging anonymous online post anyway (watch out, catch that sentence-starting conjunction before it hurts someone!). The fact that you thought it worth your time to comment on says more about you than the fact that I made the mistake in the first place says about me.

Churchill2004: Oooh, I made a grammatical error!

Well. Since we're pointing out your inadequacies

beuracrats

you might want to invest in a spell checker.

The fact that you thought it worth your time to comment on says more about you than the fact that I made the mistake in the first place says about me.

What does the fact that you wasted time commenting on his comment say?

HansensDisease: bullshiat. it's a fact.

It's unsubstantiated improbable conjecture. Big corporations absolutely do buy government power when it suits them, which is why the power shouldn't be available to sell in the first place, but the idea that the rise of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, et al is some corporatist conspiracy to influence the government rather than simply reflecting the actual ability of these performance artists to attract talk radio listeners is absurd. If corporations want special privileges, they'll pay lobbyists and lawyers for them. They won't pay some loud-mouth to rant against gay marriage- they do that because it makes money.

Why is it so inconceivable that there is higher demand for blovating right-wingers on talk radio than bloviating left-wingers? There are certainly plenty of other examples of certain industries having a certain political tilt. Why is radio so important?

There's also the perfectly valid point that NPR might be soaking up a lot of whatever lefty-leaning demand there is. No, NPR does not equal a left-wing Limbaugh, but NPR's audience pretty unarguably skews Democratic and liberal.


HansensDisease: because you're a corporate stooge. or a sheep. you decide

I am neither, and you are a condescending, narrow-minded political hack.



HansensDisease: bullshiat again

I'm sure some business interest and corporations were involved in the original declaration of airwaves as "public property" (moralizing Puritans had a lot to do with it, too), but your nebulous catch-all bad guys of "the corporations" have very little bearing on the question of whether or not the government should be involved in deciding the content of political radio broadcasts.


HansensDisease: incorrect. what part of having the station owners still havong access to 99.9 of the transmitter time don't you understand?

You keep wavering back and forth between "everyone will have access!" and "nothing will really change". If the former, then my comment still applies. If the latter, then what's the point?


HansensDisease: Wharrrgarble. The station owners decide who gets on when. The FCC doesn't get involved unless petitioned. The petition is denied if the station obviously made an effort

You can have lax enforcement (but again, then what's the point?) or you have a system where broadcasters are made to air someone that satisfies the FCC. So, if it were really left up to the stations to pick the "contrasting views", then there would be nothing to stop right-wing loudmouths from either 1)airing wackos in protest or 2) airing faux-disagreement like Colmes. What would be the point of that? Or, you have vigorous FCC enforcement, in which case you go back to my objections to government deciding content.

HansensDisease: Great. There's your free market. The internet isn't bandwidth-limited. Radiowaves are. They don't belong to you

Wait, I though they did? Wasn't that your (totally unbacked) argument all along... that for-free broadcast frequencies are "public property" because... well, because they are!

Unless you meant to imply I currently hold an FCC broadcasting lease, in which case you are mistaken.

HansensDisease: Churchill2004: Oooh, I made a grammatical error!

Well. Since we're pointing out your inadequacies

beuracrats

you might want to invest in a spell checker.

Sorry, I was too busy making substantive arguments.

HansensDisease: What does the fact that you wasted time commenting on his comment say?

What about your commenting on my commenting on his commenting on my comment?


Making a show of pointing out a spelling/grammar mistake and then claiming that that's why you're not offering a rebuttal is a stupid, childish thing to do. That's all I'm saying.

Churchill2004: Sorry, I was too busy making substantive arguments.

The point is, no you weren't. Giving access to public airwaves to the public is in no way censorship. Locking them up to the corporations is.

As the National Religious Broadcasters convened today in Nashville, an ominous shroud cast by political chatter about the reimposition of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in the nation's capital hung over the gathering.

I think the 'fairness doctrine' is the worst idea ever concieved....but that said, I can find no evidence that anyone in Congress is planning on implimenting it. Oh sure, there's a couple of fringe loonies in a couple safe districts who've been talking about it. But they've been talking about 'fairness doctrine' and UFO sightings for years now and neither has any chance of becoming reality any time soon.

Churchill2004: It's unsubstantiated improbable conjecture.

Horseshiat. Conservative talk shows support the status quo. Which is preserving and extending corporate power.

You keep wavering back and forth between "everyone will have access!" and "nothing will really change"

Only in your mind. Some access is better than no access. No access is your policy.

Wait, I though they did?

The airwaves belong to the entirety of the American people. Not just Limbaugh and his owners.

for-free broadcast frequencies are "public property" because... well, because they are!

Read the Radio Act of 1927. The provisions are also part of the Communications Act of 1934, which replaced the FRC with the FCC.

you are a condescending, narrow-minded political hack.

Tsk, tsk. Only one of us is trying to minimize political discourse. That's a pretty fair assessment of who's narrow minded.

Hint: it's you.

Sorry, I was too busy making substantive arguments.

Must have been in another thread. All I see is someone sucking corporate cock and calling freedom of speech "utopian nonsense".

HansensDisease: What does the fact that you wasted time commenting on his comment say?

What about your commenting on my commenting on his commenting on my comment?

What about your commenting on my commenting on your commenting on his commenting on your comment?

Churchill2004: Neither any part of the status quo nor any hypothetical "Fairness Doctrine" will change the fact that it takes money to run a radio station and/or show. Not necessarily rich- groups of non-rich people can and do round up enough money to launch such endeavors all the time- but it will never be cheap, much less "free".

Just make a rule that X% of the content on any given station must be locally (for some value of "local") produced. Don't worry about the content, only the origin. Add to that a return to strict regulations on how many stations a single company can own.

That would be closer to the original desire to ensure that the airwaves serve some public interest.

This is the equivalent to the left saying that Bush was going to declare martial law and cancel the elections.

The FD was in effect for years, and none of that shiat happened.

/Not in favor of it, but let's not get ridiculous...

Looks trustworthy.

Interesting phrasing in the article. Talking about how hate crime speech could put a damper on Christian broadcasting. How about, instead of trying to stop this legislation, you STOP PREACHING HATE you slack jawed junk-sluts.

Also, I find it funny how these same types of people want "balance" in the classroom when it comes to teaching evolution, but don't want "balance" when it comes to being able to broadcast religious messages. Either way, nice to see these right-wing Christians being so open about hating fairness.