War on Fox News

[American_Jihad]

That's what I thought you meant and I'm against progressing if it means abandoning conservative principles.

I'd never ask anyone to do that. I am a more progressive Republican, but thats because im young and idealistic. I guess you could call me a "greater fool" when it comes to American politics.

Or it could simply be that you’re not an ideologue, having nothing to do with age. You may not be blinded by the hate and ignorance that makes up much of conservative dogma, taking a more pragmatic approach.

Pot calling the kettle black syndrome...

 

[JohnL.Burke]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

 

[Pogo]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

News doesn't make money, cannot make money and never did make money. Objective news would have to be subsidized (as all the straight network news shows of TV's early years were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and the Gilligan's Islands). The fake news we labour under today (i.e. that which gets ratings) is enabled by the unwashed masses, who are more captivated by emotional hooks of what some doctor prescribed Michael Jackson or a murder trial of some celebrity they've never met, than what their own federal, state or local government is doing. Known in the biz as the lowest common denominator.

The Fairness Doctrine is great myth fodder but it belongs to the past, from the 1940s to the 1980s. All it did was require a broadcaster to balance opinionated programming. In other words it ensured the level playing field like we have on this message board (e.g. if you disagree with this post you have the power to respond). When it was abolished by the Reaganites, that was the exact time Rush Limbaugh rose to prominence, and arguably there began the rhetorical polarization we're mired in now.

Not long after that (1996) came Rupert Murdoch, who had built (and inherited) a fortune on tabloid newspapers, bringing that same concept to television with "Fox News". Rather than opening a lot of bureaus and flying onsite reporters to the scene (which is what makes news an expensive venture), Fox concentrated on talking heads in a studio talking about the news. And today this is its ratings lifeblood; not news but opinion. Even though the logo "Fox News" deceptively sits in the corner the whole time.

Fox's main thrust is really not ideology; it's profit. And just as a tabloid inexplicably makes money with stories of Elvis' three-headed Martian baby, so Murdoch's news-gossip carefully engineers in all the emotional tools of audience-grabbing: splashy color, angry white men, young bimbos in short skirts, suggestive screen crawls and most important of all, fear and loathing in every story. The antithesis of objectivity. News not about politics but about politicians, personally. Because gossip sells, while policy does not.

In the same year (1996) the mass media consolidated itself with the despicable Telecommunications Act which opened the floodgates to monopolies, which now control virtually all television and radio (with the same few companies simultaneously owning entire empires of movie companies and theaters, book publishers, newspapers, sports arenas, internet providers and record companies), all of which they use to cross-promote their own "products", given their newfound ability to dictate what the "news" is. "The news is what we say it is!" famously declared a Fox executive.

Given this corporate concentration, it's hard to see the alphabets as "leaning left". The so-called "liberal media" is a myth created by the right, which in moments of candor admits it's a fabrication. In truth we have virtually no leftist media in this country (some, but nothing on the same mass scale). What we have in effect is news that leans right (and in the case of Fox, righter), but mostly leans to profit. And in that endeavor, truly objective news is always the first casualty.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'd never ask anyone to do that. I am a more progressive Republican, but thats because im young and idealistic. I guess you could call me a "greater fool" when it comes to American politics.

Progressive Republican sounds like an oxymoron. Republicans are (supposed) to be for limited government, strong national defense, self reliance, individual responsibility....etc.

So how can you progress any of these tenets?

Well we will disagree, but hopefully it will still be fun.

I believe in personal freedoms. I dont care what people do behind their bedroom doors so I support Gay marriage. It's going to happen and I dont believe it harms the sanctity of marriage. Those who wish to be seen in the eyes of the law as married should have every right to be miserable just like you and I. Its not an issue for me or most younger Republicans

I believe in a a women's right to choose. Most kids who are born unwanted, or in financial poverty will end up in jail. Id rather a couple have the choice to have a child when they are ready financially and if they decide that they are not within the first tri mester than I have no problem with the SC ruling.

I believe in evolution, which by this point should just be considered fact.

I also believe that guns should be regulated, there are too many american children are being killed on the streets because its too easy to get a gun

However, I believe in the free market, I believe in an equal and simple tax code, I believe everyone has the right and responsibility to make the most out of their lives.

I stand with drone warfare.

I believe that regulation is neccissary, but it should never hamper a business's ability to make as much as possible.

I dont have enough time to go into health care, but thats what I mean when I say I am a progressive Republican

It harms to fabric of society.

Abortion is murder.

Evolution is not a fact.

You're a liberal Republican, aka a Republican poser.

 

[Foxfyre]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

I've been an active member of the media and a loooooong time amateur media analyst and I agree with your evaluation except that you need to add PBS and NPR to your list of media on the left. Those on the left tend to hear and see news reports and commentary that slant left as 'normal', 'unbiased', 'accurate', and 'fair'. And anything that doesn't tilt left, they see as biased, partisan, and wrong. Thus Fox News or conservative talk radio can be telling something 100% accurately, and many leftists will reject it as partisan bullshit and inaccurate or deliberately wrong.

And in fairness, we also have some conservatives who reject ANYTHING a leftist news source puts out, while most of us will actually quote those sources when they get something right.

But the reason so many of us are conservative is because we have a specific point of view, an identifiable value system, and a perspective we can defend. We appreciate Fox News and conservative talk radio as pretty much the ONLY sources we have to hear our point of view expressed.

It is my considered opinion that most on the left have no specific point of view, could not articulate their value system if their life depended on it, and are unable to defend their perspective without attacking somebody or something. And they resent conservative sources (and people) because they resent so much the convictions expressed that liberals must reject in order to be liberals, but they have nothing to counter those convictions other than personal insults and expressions of contempt.

It doesn't make those on the left bad people any more than those on the right are bad people. It is just one of those things that differentiates the left from the right in America.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

I've been an active member of the media and a loooooong time amateur media analyst and I agree with your evaluation except that you need to add PBS and NPR to your list of media on the left. Those on the left tend to hear and see news reports and commentary that slant left as 'normal', 'unbiased', 'accurate', and 'fair'. And anything that doesn't tilt left, they see as biased, partisan, and wrong. Thus Fox News or conservative talk radio can be telling something 100% accurately, and many leftists will reject it as partisan bullshit and inaccurate or deliberately wrong.

And in fairness, we also have some conservatives who reject ANYTHING a leftist news source puts out, while most of us will actually quote those sources when they get something right.

But the reason so many of us are conservative is because we have a specific point of view, an identifiable value system, and a perspective we can defend. We appreciate Fox News and conservative talk radio as pretty much the ONLY sources we have to hear our point of view expressed.

It is my considered opinion that most on the left have no specific point of view, could not articulate their value system if their life depended on it, and are unable to defend their perspective without attacking somebody or something. And they resent conservative sources (and people) because they resent so much the convictions expressed that liberals must reject in order to be liberals, but they have nothing to counter those convictions other than personal insults and expressions of contempt.

It doesn't make those on the left bad people any more than those on the right are bad people. It is just one of those things that differentiates the left from the right in America.

Well said!

 

[Pogo]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

I've been an active member of the media and a loooooong time amateur media analyst and I agree with your evaluation except that you need to add PBS and NPR to your list of media on the left. Those on the left tend to hear and see news reports and commentary that slant left as 'normal', 'unbiased', 'accurate', and 'fair'. And anything that doesn't tilt left, they see as biased, partisan, and wrong. Thus Fox News or conservative talk radio can be telling something 100% accurately, and many leftists will reject it as partisan bullshit and inaccurate or deliberately wrong.

And in fairness, we also have some conservatives who reject ANYTHING a leftist news source puts out, while most of us will actually quote those sources when they get something right.

But the reason so many of us are conservative is because we have a specific point of view, an identifiable value system, and a perspective we can defend. We appreciate Fox News and conservative talk radio as pretty much the ONLY sources we have to hear our point of view expressed.

It is my considered opinion that most on the left have no specific point of view, could not articulate their value system if their life depended on it, and are unable to defend their perspective without attacking somebody or something. And they resent conservative sources (and people) because they resent so much the convictions expressed that liberals must reject in order to be liberals, but they have nothing to counter those convictions other than personal insults and expressions of contempt.

It doesn't make those on the left bad people any more than those on the right are bad people. It is just one of those things that differentiates the left from the right in America.

PBS and NPR are based on a good idea-- freedom from commercial interference-- but have over the years degraded that ideal due to "underwriting" followed by "enhanced underwriting", which effectively undoes that ideal and creates the same conflict of interest an advertiser would: "make this change or we pull our funding". That has pushed them to the right along with the rest of mass media.

It's a nice myth and all, this martyr complex of being surrounded by "leftists", but it's fantasy. What we're surrounded by is corporatia, and to imagine that this channel is on "our" side and that one is "their" side is to ignore the puppeteers pulling the strings -- puppeteers who have far more in common with each other than with any of us. Puppeteers who wish us to keep squabbling over Fox versus ABC versus PBS, rather than look up at who's pulling the strings on the whole show.

Much the same as imagining that "Democrats" and "Republicans" represent two different parties.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

News doesn't make money, cannot make money and never did make money. Objective news would have to be subsidized (as all the straight network news shows of TV's early years were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and the Gilligan's Islands). It's enabled by the unwashed masses, who are more captivated by emotional hooks of what some doctor prescribed Michael Jackson or a murder trial of some celebrity they've never met, than what their own federal, state or local government is doing.

The Fairness Doctrine is great myth fodder but it belongs to the past, from the 1940s to the 1980s. All it did was require a broadcaster to balance opinionated programming. In other words it ensured the level playing field like we have on this message board (e.g. if you disagree with this post you have the power to respond). When it was abolished by the Reaganites, that was the exact time Rush Limbaugh rose to prominence, and arguably there began the rhetorical polarization we're mired in now.

Not long after that (1996) came Rupert Murdoch, who had built (and inherited) a fortune on tabloid newspapers, bringing that same concept to television with "Fox News". Rather than opening a lot of bureaus and flying onsite reporters to the scene (which is what makes news an expensive venture), Fox concentrated on talking heads in a studio talking about the news. And today this is its ratings lifeblood; not news but opinion. Even though the logo "Fox News" sits deceptively in the corner the whole time.

Fox's main thrust is really not ideology; it's profit. And just as a tabloid inexplicably makes money with stories of Elvis' three-headed Martian baby, so Murdoch's news-gossip carefully engineers in all the emotional tools of audience-grabbing: splashy color, angry white men, young bimbos in short skirts, suggestive screen crawls and most important of all, fear and loathing in every story. The antithesis of objectivity. News not about politics but about politicians, personally. Because gossip sells, while policy does not.

In the same year (1996) the mass media consolidated itself with the despicable Telecommunications Act which opened the floodgates to monopolies, which now control virtually all television and radio (with the same few companies simultaneously owning entire empires of movie companies and theaters, book publishers, newspapers, sports arenas, internet providers and record companies), all of which they use to cross-promote their own "products", given their newfound ability to dictate what the "news" is. "The news is what we say it is!" famously declared a Fox executive.

Given this corporate concentration, it's hard to see the alphabets as "leaning left". The so-called "liberal media" is a myth created by the right, which in moments of candor admits it's a fabrication. In truth we have virtually no leftist media in this country (some, but nothing on the same mass scale). What we have in effect is news that leans right (and in the case of Fox, righter), but mostly leans to profit. And in that endeavor, truly objective news is always the first casualty.

Foxfyre did a better job at rebutting your opinion than I could. I would just add that saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did. By the way, why is it the governments job to decide what should be said anyway? Also, what does "balance opinionated programing" mean? Does it mean if you have a show hosted by a democrat then you require a show afterward hosted by a progressive? I find the government (the FCC being an "independent" agency of the U.S. government) having anything to do with flexing authority over individual expression a bit fascistic.

 

[Foxfyre]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

I've been an active member of the media and a loooooong time amateur media analyst and I agree with your evaluation except that you need to add PBS and NPR to your list of media on the left. Those on the left tend to hear and see news reports and commentary that slant left as 'normal', 'unbiased', 'accurate', and 'fair'. And anything that doesn't tilt left, they see as biased, partisan, and wrong. Thus Fox News or conservative talk radio can be telling something 100% accurately, and many leftists will reject it as partisan bullshit and inaccurate or deliberately wrong.

And in fairness, we also have some conservatives who reject ANYTHING a leftist news source puts out, while most of us will actually quote those sources when they get something right.

But the reason so many of us are conservative is because we have a specific point of view, an identifiable value system, and a perspective we can defend. We appreciate Fox News and conservative talk radio as pretty much the ONLY sources we have to hear our point of view expressed.

It is my considered opinion that most on the left have no specific point of view, could not articulate their value system if their life depended on it, and are unable to defend their perspective without attacking somebody or something. And they resent conservative sources (and people) because they resent so much the convictions expressed that liberals must reject in order to be liberals, but they have nothing to counter those convictions other than personal insults and expressions of contempt.

It doesn't make those on the left bad people any more than those on the right are bad people. It is just one of those things that differentiates the left from the right in America.

PBS and NPR are based on a good idea-- freedom from commercial interference-- but have over the years degraded that ideal due to "underwriting" followed by "enhanced underwriting", which effectively undoes that ideal and creates the same conflict of interest an advertiser would: "make this change or we pull our funding". That has pushed them to the right along with the rest of mass media.

It's a nice myth and all, this martyr complex of being surrounded by "leftists", but it's fantasy. What we're surrounded by is corporatia, and to imagine that this channel is on "our" side and that one is "their" side is to ignore the puppeteers pulling the strings -- puppeteers who have far more in common with each other than with any of us. Puppeteers who wish us to keep squabbling over Fox versus ABC versus PBS, rather than look up at who's pulling the strings on the whole show.

Much the same as imagining that "Democrats" and "Republicans" represent two different parties.

But re PBS and NPR, any entity that depends heavily on taxpayer subsidy will not be free from political interference. Anybody who thinks it is absolutely lives in fantasy land. And do you honestly believe that the corporate contributions are given with no strings attached? That the mention of the groups that 'sponsor' this or that program is not 'advertising'? That corporations don't have a say in what their contributions buy?

However, having worked in the media, newspapers, radio, and television, I am pretty arn sure I am on solid footing in how the news slants. And in evaluating it as critically and accurately as any other amateur.

The Media Research Center, having its own bias but not drawing on it in this article, has pulled together a summary of a number of studies over the years. I don't believe they have updated their information since the Bush Administration, but I think we can all agree that not a lot has changed in the media since then:
Media Bias Basics

The average newsroom these days has no reluctance to slant any news report in a specific way which is more often going to be left. And because those who favor a conservative point of view find such news rooms a pretty hostile environment, there isn't a lot of room for reporters, commentators, anchors, program managers who tilt right of center.

 

[Pogo]

ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN leans left. Fox leans right. As for the opinion shows on cable, they get the highest ratings. News is a business. Let's not pretend news is above making a profit. Perhaps some entrepreneur will make a non biased news channel someday. Of course, this channel will probably not last long. Anyway, there are straight news stories one can find on the internet if one is so inclined. Either way, we must let the marketplace decide as opposed to governmental oversight like some on the left want with the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to am radio.

News doesn't make money, cannot make money and never did make money. Objective news would have to be subsidized (as all the straight network news shows of TV's early years were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and the Gilligan's Islands). It's enabled by the unwashed masses, who are more captivated by emotional hooks of what some doctor prescribed Michael Jackson or a murder trial of some celebrity they've never met, than what their own federal, state or local government is doing.

The Fairness Doctrine is great myth fodder but it belongs to the past, from the 1940s to the 1980s. All it did was require a broadcaster to balance opinionated programming. In other words it ensured the level playing field like we have on this message board (e.g. if you disagree with this post you have the power to respond). When it was abolished by the Reaganites, that was the exact time Rush Limbaugh rose to prominence, and arguably there began the rhetorical polarization we're mired in now.

Not long after that (1996) came Rupert Murdoch, who had built (and inherited) a fortune on tabloid newspapers, bringing that same concept to television with "Fox News". Rather than opening a lot of bureaus and flying onsite reporters to the scene (which is what makes news an expensive venture), Fox concentrated on talking heads in a studio talking about the news. And today this is its ratings lifeblood; not news but opinion. Even though the logo "Fox News" sits deceptively in the corner the whole time.

Fox's main thrust is really not ideology; it's profit. And just as a tabloid inexplicably makes money with stories of Elvis' three-headed Martian baby, so Murdoch's news-gossip carefully engineers in all the emotional tools of audience-grabbing: splashy color, angry white men, young bimbos in short skirts, suggestive screen crawls and most important of all, fear and loathing in every story. The antithesis of objectivity. News not about politics but about politicians, personally. Because gossip sells, while policy does not.

In the same year (1996) the mass media consolidated itself with the despicable Telecommunications Act which opened the floodgates to monopolies, which now control virtually all television and radio (with the same few companies simultaneously owning entire empires of movie companies and theaters, book publishers, newspapers, sports arenas, internet providers and record companies), all of which they use to cross-promote their own "products", given their newfound ability to dictate what the "news" is. "The news is what we say it is!" famously declared a Fox executive.

Given this corporate concentration, it's hard to see the alphabets as "leaning left". The so-called "liberal media" is a myth created by the right, which in moments of candor admits it's a fabrication. In truth we have virtually no leftist media in this country (some, but nothing on the same mass scale). What we have in effect is news that leans right (and in the case of Fox, righter), but mostly leans to profit. And in that endeavor, truly objective news is always the first casualty.

Foxfyre did a better job at rebutting your opinion than I could. I would just add that saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did. By the way, why is it the governments job to decide what should be said anyway? Also, what does "balance opinionated programing" mean? Does it mean if you have a show hosted by a democrat then you require a show afterward hosted by a progressive? I find the government (the FCC being an "independent" agency of the U.S. government) having anything to do with flexing authority over individual expression a bit fascistic.

I didn't take Foxy's post as a "rebuttal"; what I posted was more a historical basis, albeit rambling, about how the business works. She and I both have extensive media backgrounds but mine is concentrated in broadcasting directly and I know the processes intimately.

I sense you may be unclear on the Fairness Doctrine; since I worked in broadcasting both before and after it (and trained people on it) perhaps I can clarify. The FD never dictated anything that could or could not be said; it was an FCC doctrine (not a law) that required a licensee, if and when they broadcast a one-sided strong opinion, to balance that opinion with an opposing viewpoint -- IF that opposing party requested it.

The most well-known example is Red Lion in 1969, where a station had broadcast a defamatory rant (personal attack) against a journalist, who requested airtime under the FD to respond. The station refused, and it went to SCOTUS, where the aggrieved journalist and the FD prevailed and said the journalist did have the right to respond.

The idea of the FD was that since broadcast space is limited and only a very few could use it (this was in the 1940s when there was no internet and TV hadn't taken a foothold), and since the airwaves are defined as belonging to the public, anyone licensed to operate on it must allow dissenting views (if it chose to take sides in the first place) by making airtime available as in the example above. It was pushed by Republicans actually, including Joe McCarthy, who used it to request airtime on Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" in 1954 after Murrow had broadcast his show on McCarthy. McCarthy was given the entire show to rebut the Murrow broadcast.

I trust these two examples illustrate how the FD worked. But at NO time did any government agency dictate what could or couldn't be said, and at NO time was any such consideration part of a license application. I've been deeply involved in license applications and I know whereof I speak on this.

Unfortunately the Sean Hannitys and liars of his ilk have gleefully misrepresented all this, presumably because they want a monologue, not a dialogue. Dialogue is what we're doing right here; monologue would be if I made this post and prevented you from responding to it.

Since the 1940s and 1980s the argument has been made that the scarcity of media has evolved and therefore the FD was abolished in the late '80s. I'd suggest you read up on this before following the Hannitys down the hole; your phraseology "let the marketplace decide" is fraught with rhetorical peril. Public discourse is not something that should be for sale to the highest bidder. Basically the FD was the regulatory incarnation of the First Amendment, applied to the new technology of the time.

As you might infer I've been over this issue for many years and on several message boards; I've repeatedly invited anyone anywhere to come up with a single incident where the Fairness Doctrine ever silenced an opinion. I'm still waiting for the first example, because none exists.

What I've posted here is historical fact, not opinion. The only opinion I posted in your quoted post was the word "despicable" and the concluding paragraph. Hope this helps.

 

[Pogo]

I've been an active member of the media and a loooooong time amateur media analyst and I agree with your evaluation except that you need to add PBS and NPR to your list of media on the left. Those on the left tend to hear and see news reports and commentary that slant left as 'normal', 'unbiased', 'accurate', and 'fair'. And anything that doesn't tilt left, they see as biased, partisan, and wrong. Thus Fox News or conservative talk radio can be telling something 100% accurately, and many leftists will reject it as partisan bullshit and inaccurate or deliberately wrong.

And in fairness, we also have some conservatives who reject ANYTHING a leftist news source puts out, while most of us will actually quote those sources when they get something right.

But the reason so many of us are conservative is because we have a specific point of view, an identifiable value system, and a perspective we can defend. We appreciate Fox News and conservative talk radio as pretty much the ONLY sources we have to hear our point of view expressed.

It is my considered opinion that most on the left have no specific point of view, could not articulate their value system if their life depended on it, and are unable to defend their perspective without attacking somebody or something. And they resent conservative sources (and people) because they resent so much the convictions expressed that liberals must reject in order to be liberals, but they have nothing to counter those convictions other than personal insults and expressions of contempt.

It doesn't make those on the left bad people any more than those on the right are bad people. It is just one of those things that differentiates the left from the right in America.

PBS and NPR are based on a good idea-- freedom from commercial interference-- but have over the years degraded that ideal due to "underwriting" followed by "enhanced underwriting", which effectively undoes that ideal and creates the same conflict of interest an advertiser would: "make this change or we pull our funding". That has pushed them to the right along with the rest of mass media.

It's a nice myth and all, this martyr complex of being surrounded by "leftists", but it's fantasy. What we're surrounded by is corporatia, and to imagine that this channel is on "our" side and that one is "their" side is to ignore the puppeteers pulling the strings -- puppeteers who have far more in common with each other than with any of us. Puppeteers who wish us to keep squabbling over Fox versus ABC versus PBS, rather than look up at who's pulling the strings on the whole show.

Much the same as imagining that "Democrats" and "Republicans" represent two different parties.

But re PBS and NPR, any entity that depends heavily on taxpayer subsidy will not be free from political interference. Anybody who thinks it is absolutely lives in fantasy land. And do you honestly believe that the corporate contributions are given with no strings attached? That the mention of the groups that 'sponsor' this or that program is not 'advertising'? That corporations don't have a say in what their contributions buy?

That was in fact my point, Foxy.
On the corporate stuff anyway.

On the governmental subsidy side, I can tell you firsthand that all the FCC wants to know is that you have a plan to "serve" your community. HOW you serve is completely up to the licensee. No benchmarks, guidelines or questions about political views are part of any license application or CPB application.

However it should be noted that in terms of levels of public funding for broadcasting, this country does an absolutely abysmal job compared to places like Germany and Japan, Even Canada; next week I have a trip that way and one thing I always look forward to is being able to tune the car radio to what real public radio can sound like.

I snipped off the opinion part about newsrooms; that's a whole 'nother direction we can all post competing opinions on, and I'd rather stay with the factual.

 

[Foxfyre]

PBS and NPR are based on a good idea-- freedom from commercial interference-- but have over the years degraded that ideal due to "underwriting" followed by "enhanced underwriting", which effectively undoes that ideal and creates the same conflict of interest an advertiser would: "make this change or we pull our funding". That has pushed them to the right along with the rest of mass media.

It's a nice myth and all, this martyr complex of being surrounded by "leftists", but it's fantasy. What we're surrounded by is corporatia, and to imagine that this channel is on "our" side and that one is "their" side is to ignore the puppeteers pulling the strings -- puppeteers who have far more in common with each other than with any of us. Puppeteers who wish us to keep squabbling over Fox versus ABC versus PBS, rather than look up at who's pulling the strings on the whole show.

Much the same as imagining that "Democrats" and "Republicans" represent two different parties.

But re PBS and NPR, any entity that depends heavily on taxpayer subsidy will not be free from political interference. Anybody who thinks it is absolutely lives in fantasy land. And do you honestly believe that the corporate contributions are given with no strings attached? That the mention of the groups that 'sponsor' this or that program is not 'advertising'? That corporations don't have a say in what their contributions buy?

That was in fact my point, Foxy.
On the corporate stuff anyway.

On the governmental subsidy side, I can tell you firsthand that all the FCC wants to know is that you have a plan to "serve" your community. HOW you serve is completely up to the licensee. No benchmarks, guidelines or questions about political views are part of any license application.

However it should be noted that in terms of levels of public funding for broadcasting, this country does an absolutely abysmal job compared to places like Germany and Japan, Even Canada; next week I have a trip that way and one thing I always look forward to is being able to tune the car radio to what real public radio can sound like.

I snipped off the opinion part about newsrooms; that's a whole 'nother direction we can all post competing opinions on, and I'd rather stay with the factual.

For me it is all factual because I've been there and I still know a lot of folks who are there now.

Corporations have much less influence on the mainstream media than they do on PBS. Corporations tend to advertise where they can get the biggest bang for their advertising dollar and they care about that more than they care about the ideologal slant on the programming. A 30 share program, no matter how slanted, biased, or dishonest, will get its fair share of advertisers. Fox News gets a lot of good advertisers targeting a specific demographic regardless of where Fox places the ads within its programming schedule because Fox beats all the competition combined for that particular demographic.

You of course have whiny butts who target this or that personality and lean on the advertisers to boycott that personality. You were probably ecstatic when they did that to Glenn Beck awhile back. That can create a headache for the program manager who has to juggle the ads, but really doesn't affect Fox's revenues. The advertisers don't want to miss out on the market so they just boycott the program but not the network. So Fox just moves the ads around to keep everybody happy. There are plenty of advertisers who HAVEN'T been targeted with threats by the anti-free speech crowd who are happy to have their ads featured on a very popular program.

In other words, corporations aka advertisers do not affect content in the free press as much as you would like to believe.'

But it is extremely naive to think that a government funded media is free press in any way, shape or form. It isn't. By its very nature it easily becomes a propaganda tool of government.

 

[Pogo]

But re PBS and NPR, any entity that depends heavily on taxpayer subsidy will not be free from political interference. Anybody who thinks it is absolutely lives in fantasy land. And do you honestly believe that the corporate contributions are given with no strings attached? That the mention of the groups that 'sponsor' this or that program is not 'advertising'? That corporations don't have a say in what their contributions buy?

That was in fact my point, Foxy.
On the corporate stuff anyway.

On the governmental subsidy side, I can tell you firsthand that all the FCC wants to know is that you have a plan to "serve" your community. HOW you serve is completely up to the licensee. No benchmarks, guidelines or questions about political views are part of any license application.

However it should be noted that in terms of levels of public funding for broadcasting, this country does an absolutely abysmal job compared to places like Germany and Japan, Even Canada; next week I have a trip that way and one thing I always look forward to is being able to tune the car radio to what real public radio can sound like.

I snipped off the opinion part about newsrooms; that's a whole 'nother direction we can all post competing opinions on, and I'd rather stay with the factual.

For me it is all factual because I've been there and I still know a lot of folks who are there now.

Corporations have much less influence on the mainstream media than they do on PBS. Corporations tend to advertise where they can get the biggest bang for their advertising dollar and they care about that more than they care about the ideologal slant on the programming. A 30 share program, no matter how slanted, biased, or dishonest, will get its fair share of advertisers. Fox News gets a lot of good advertisers targeting a specific demographic regardless of where Fox places the ads within its programming schedule because Fox beats all the competition combined for that particular demographic.

Absolutely. The goal of (commercial) broadcasting is to deliver eyes and ears to the advertiser, however it can, no question about that. That's exactly the dynamic that keeps it from being objective and interesting, which is why that role falls to the public funding system (and by that I mean both government and voluntary support, neither of which carries quid pro quo).

Bottom line, LCD is what sells. Sadly. That's what makes television a "vast wasteland".

I'm not disputing you here Foxy (that comes later ) -- when I say I'd rather stay with the "factual", I mean I'd rather stay with the historical facts. As opposed to getting into a pissing contest about "our guys and your guys" and who leans which way. I don't see any point in that.

You of course have whiny butts who target this or that personality and lean on the advertisers to boycott that personality. You were probably ecstatic when they did that to Glenn Beck awhile back. That can create a headache for the program manager who has to juggle the ads, but really doesn't affect Fox's revenues. The advertisers don't want to miss out on the market so they just boycott the program but not the network. So Fox just moves the ads around to keep everybody happy. There are plenty of advertisers who HAVEN'T been targeted with threats by the anti-free speech crowd who are happy to have their ads featured on a very popular program.

You seem to have all kinds of delusions and presumptions lately about my relationship with Glenn Beck. Not going there.

In other words, corporations aka advertisers do not affect content in the free press as much as you would like to believe.'

But it is extremely naive to think that a government funded media is free press in any way, shape or form. It isn't. By its very nature it easily becomes a propaganda tool of government.

That's where you're dead wrong, Foxy. It's a nice conspiracy fantasy and all but I've been in the process, and I mean all the way inside the process -- inside the license applications, inside the CPB applications, down to the tiniest detail, and I can tell you categorically (and already have) that there is simply no ideological pressure in government funding therein, neither overt nor covert. I know it's a popular pastime to imagine all kinds of government bugaboos but reality is reality and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But it's your claim, so you have the burden of proof.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

News doesn't make money, cannot make money and never did make money. Objective news would have to be subsidized (as all the straight network news shows of TV's early years were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and the Gilligan's Islands). It's enabled by the unwashed masses, who are more captivated by emotional hooks of what some doctor prescribed Michael Jackson or a murder trial of some celebrity they've never met, than what their own federal, state or local government is doing.

The Fairness Doctrine is great myth fodder but it belongs to the past, from the 1940s to the 1980s. All it did was require a broadcaster to balance opinionated programming. In other words it ensured the level playing field like we have on this message board (e.g. if you disagree with this post you have the power to respond). When it was abolished by the Reaganites, that was the exact time Rush Limbaugh rose to prominence, and arguably there began the rhetorical polarization we're mired in now.

Not long after that (1996) came Rupert Murdoch, who had built (and inherited) a fortune on tabloid newspapers, bringing that same concept to television with "Fox News". Rather than opening a lot of bureaus and flying onsite reporters to the scene (which is what makes news an expensive venture), Fox concentrated on talking heads in a studio talking about the news. And today this is its ratings lifeblood; not news but opinion. Even though the logo "Fox News" sits deceptively in the corner the whole time.

Fox's main thrust is really not ideology; it's profit. And just as a tabloid inexplicably makes money with stories of Elvis' three-headed Martian baby, so Murdoch's news-gossip carefully engineers in all the emotional tools of audience-grabbing: splashy color, angry white men, young bimbos in short skirts, suggestive screen crawls and most important of all, fear and loathing in every story. The antithesis of objectivity. News not about politics but about politicians, personally. Because gossip sells, while policy does not.

In the same year (1996) the mass media consolidated itself with the despicable Telecommunications Act which opened the floodgates to monopolies, which now control virtually all television and radio (with the same few companies simultaneously owning entire empires of movie companies and theaters, book publishers, newspapers, sports arenas, internet providers and record companies), all of which they use to cross-promote their own "products", given their newfound ability to dictate what the "news" is. "The news is what we say it is!" famously declared a Fox executive.

Given this corporate concentration, it's hard to see the alphabets as "leaning left". The so-called "liberal media" is a myth created by the right, which in moments of candor admits it's a fabrication. In truth we have virtually no leftist media in this country (some, but nothing on the same mass scale). What we have in effect is news that leans right (and in the case of Fox, righter), but mostly leans to profit. And in that endeavor, truly objective news is always the first casualty.

Foxfyre did a better job at rebutting your opinion than I could. I would just add that saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did. By the way, why is it the governments job to decide what should be said anyway? Also, what does "balance opinionated programing" mean? Does it mean if you have a show hosted by a democrat then you require a show afterward hosted by a progressive? I find the government (the FCC being an "independent" agency of the U.S. government) having anything to do with flexing authority over individual expression a bit fascistic.

I didn't take Foxy's post as a "rebuttal"; what I posted was more a historical basis, albeit rambling, about how the business works. She and I both have extensive media backgrounds but mine is concentrated in broadcasting directly and I know the processes intimately.

I sense you may be unclear on the Fairness Doctrine; since I worked in broadcasting both before and after it (and trained people on it) perhaps I can clarify. The FD never dictated anything that could or could not be said; it was an FCC doctrine (not a law) that required a licensee, if and when they broadcast a one-sided strong opinion, to balance that opinion with an opposing viewpoint -- IF that opposing party requested it.

The most well-known example is Red Lion in 1969, where a station had broadcast a defamatory rant (personal attack) against a journalist, who requested airtime under the FD to respond. The station refused, and it went to SCOTUS, where the aggrieved journalist and the FD prevailed and said the journalist did have the right to respond.

The idea of the FD was that since broadcast space is limited and only a very few could use it (this was in the 1940s when there was no internet and TV hadn't taken a foothold), and since the airwaves are defined as belonging to the public, anyone licensed to operate on it must allow dissenting views (if it chose to take sides in the first place) by making airtime available as in the example above. It was pushed by Republicans actually, including Joe McCarthy, who used it to request airtime on Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" in 1954 after Murrow had broadcast his show on McCarthy. McCarthy was given the entire show to rebut the Murrow broadcast.

I trust these two examples illustrate how the FD worked. But at NO time did any government agency dictate what could or couldn't be said, and at NO time was any such consideration part of a license application. I've been deeply involved in license applications and I know whereof I speak on this.

Unfortunately the Sean Hannitys and liars of his ilk have gleefully misrepresented all this, presumably because they want a monologue, not a dialogue. Dialogue is what we're doing right here; monologue would be if I made this post and prevented you from responding to it.

Since the 1940s and 1980s the argument has been made that the scarcity of media has evolved and therefore the FD was abolished in the late '80s. I'd suggest you read up on this before following the Hannitys down the hole; your phraseology "let the marketplace decide" is fraught with rhetorical peril. Public discourse is not something that should be for sale to the highest bidder. Basically the FD was the regulatory incarnation of the First Amendment, applied to the new technology of the time.

As you might infer I've been over this issue for many years and on several message boards; I've repeatedly invited anyone anywhere to come up with a single incident where the Fairness Doctrine ever silenced an opinion. I'm still waiting for the first example, because none exists.

What I've posted here is historical fact, not opinion. The only opinion I posted in your quoted post was the word "despicable" and the concluding paragraph. Hope this helps.

I'm glad you pointed out Red Lion Broadcasting. I wish you had put it in more context though. The same court also warned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Five years later, though not ruling it unconstitutional, a different court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine "inescapably dampens the rigor and limits the variety of debate".
This is my biggest concern. No door should be left open for the PROBABILITY of governmental overreach. I do not believe the best way to advance free speech is to let the government be able to edit it or contort it. Yes, I know, this last part is simply an opinion.
You stated that what you posted is historical fact but it wasn't ALL the facts presented and also, calling Hannity a liar is not a fact even though I'm sure you feel that way. I hope this clears up my concern about the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Pogo]

As far as corporate influence on the free press, this is probably the most notorious example:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spRCD2ptpxk]Fox News Kills Monsanto Milk Story - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

That was in fact my point, Foxy.
On the corporate stuff anyway.

On the governmental subsidy side, I can tell you firsthand that all the FCC wants to know is that you have a plan to "serve" your community. HOW you serve is completely up to the licensee. No benchmarks, guidelines or questions about political views are part of any license application.

However it should be noted that in terms of levels of public funding for broadcasting, this country does an absolutely abysmal job compared to places like Germany and Japan, Even Canada; next week I have a trip that way and one thing I always look forward to is being able to tune the car radio to what real public radio can sound like.

I snipped off the opinion part about newsrooms; that's a whole 'nother direction we can all post competing opinions on, and I'd rather stay with the factual.

For me it is all factual because I've been there and I still know a lot of folks who are there now.

Corporations have much less influence on the mainstream media than they do on PBS. Corporations tend to advertise where they can get the biggest bang for their advertising dollar and they care about that more than they care about the ideologal slant on the programming. A 30 share program, no matter how slanted, biased, or dishonest, will get its fair share of advertisers. Fox News gets a lot of good advertisers targeting a specific demographic regardless of where Fox places the ads within its programming schedule because Fox beats all the competition combined for that particular demographic.

Absolutely. The goal of (commercial) broadcasting is to deliver eyes and ears to the advertiser, however it can, no question about that. That's exactly the dynamic that keeps it from being objective and interesting, which is why that role falls to the public funding system (and by that I mean both government and voluntary support, neither of which carries quid pro quo).

Bottom line, LCD is what sells. Sadly. That's what makes television a "vast wasteland".

I'm not disputing you here Foxy (that comes later ) -- when I say I'd rather stay with the factual, I mean I'd rather stay with the historical. As opposed to getting into a pissing contest about "our guys and your guys" and who leans which way. I don't see any point in that.

You of course have whiny butts who target this or that personality and lean on the advertisers to boycott that personality. You were probably ecstatic when they did that to Glenn Beck awhile back. That can create a headache for the program manager who has to juggle the ads, but really doesn't affect Fox's revenues. The advertisers don't want to miss out on the market so they just boycott the program but not the network. So Fox just moves the ads around to keep everybody happy. There are plenty of advertisers who HAVEN'T been targeted with threats by the anti-free speech crowd who are happy to have their ads featured on a very popular program.

You seem to have all kinds of delusions and presumptions lately about my relationship with Glenn Beck. Not going there.

In other words, corporations aka advertisers do not affect content in the free press as much as you would like to believe.'

But it is extremely naive to think that a government funded media is free press in any way, shape or form. It isn't. By its very nature it easily becomes a propaganda tool of government.

That's where you're dead wrong, Foxy. It's a nice conspiracy fantasy and all but I've been in the process, and I mean all the way inside the process -- inside the license applications, inside the CPB applications, down to the tiniest detail, and I can tell you categorically (and already have) that there is simply no ideological pressure in government funding therein, neither overt nor covert. I know it's a popular pastime to imagine all kinds of government bugaboos but reality is reality and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But it's your claim, so you have the burden of proof.

I imagine no proof would convince you, so I won't even try to find a link that you wouldn't accept anyway. And if you won't accept my experience as my own source, then we are at an impasse. Suffice it to say that PBS or NPR would never in a million years admit to left leaning propensities while conservative commentators, pundits, and talk show hosts have little or no problem describing themselves as conservative.

And I bet you didn't even look at the various studies Media Research Center has pulled together that I did link.

Would you consider Heartland Institute a reliable source? Why or why not?

But if you would, what do you think about this critique of a PBS Frontline story. I was interested in this one because I watched that program last Fall and was especailly interested in Lakely's evaluation:
Critique of PBS Frontline?s ?Climate of Doubt? | Somewhat Reasonable

 

[Pogo]

Foxfyre did a better job at rebutting your opinion than I could. I would just add that saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did. By the way, why is it the governments job to decide what should be said anyway? Also, what does "balance opinionated programing" mean? Does it mean if you have a show hosted by a democrat then you require a show afterward hosted by a progressive? I find the government (the FCC being an "independent" agency of the U.S. government) having anything to do with flexing authority over individual expression a bit fascistic.

I didn't take Foxy's post as a "rebuttal"; what I posted was more a historical basis, albeit rambling, about how the business works. She and I both have extensive media backgrounds but mine is concentrated in broadcasting directly and I know the processes intimately.

I sense you may be unclear on the Fairness Doctrine; since I worked in broadcasting both before and after it (and trained people on it) perhaps I can clarify. The FD never dictated anything that could or could not be said; it was an FCC doctrine (not a law) that required a licensee, if and when they broadcast a one-sided strong opinion, to balance that opinion with an opposing viewpoint -- IF that opposing party requested it.

The most well-known example is Red Lion in 1969, where a station had broadcast a defamatory rant (personal attack) against a journalist, who requested airtime under the FD to respond. The station refused, and it went to SCOTUS, where the aggrieved journalist and the FD prevailed and said the journalist did have the right to respond.

The idea of the FD was that since broadcast space is limited and only a very few could use it (this was in the 1940s when there was no internet and TV hadn't taken a foothold), and since the airwaves are defined as belonging to the public, anyone licensed to operate on it must allow dissenting views (if it chose to take sides in the first place) by making airtime available as in the example above. It was pushed by Republicans actually, including Joe McCarthy, who used it to request airtime on Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" in 1954 after Murrow had broadcast his show on McCarthy. McCarthy was given the entire show to rebut the Murrow broadcast.

I trust these two examples illustrate how the FD worked. But at NO time did any government agency dictate what could or couldn't be said, and at NO time was any such consideration part of a license application. I've been deeply involved in license applications and I know whereof I speak on this.

Unfortunately the Sean Hannitys and liars of his ilk have gleefully misrepresented all this, presumably because they want a monologue, not a dialogue. Dialogue is what we're doing right here; monologue would be if I made this post and prevented you from responding to it.

Since the 1940s and 1980s the argument has been made that the scarcity of media has evolved and therefore the FD was abolished in the late '80s. I'd suggest you read up on this before following the Hannitys down the hole; your phraseology "let the marketplace decide" is fraught with rhetorical peril. Public discourse is not something that should be for sale to the highest bidder. Basically the FD was the regulatory incarnation of the First Amendment, applied to the new technology of the time.

As you might infer I've been over this issue for many years and on several message boards; I've repeatedly invited anyone anywhere to come up with a single incident where the Fairness Doctrine ever silenced an opinion. I'm still waiting for the first example, because none exists.

What I've posted here is historical fact, not opinion. The only opinion I posted in your quoted post was the word "despicable" and the concluding paragraph. Hope this helps.

I'm glad you pointed out Red Lion Broadcasting. I wish you had put it in more context though. The same court also warned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Five years later, though not ruling it unconstitutional, a different court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine "inescapably dampens the rigor and limits the variety of debate".
This is my biggest concern. No door should be left open for the PROBABILITY of governmental overreach. I do not believe the best way to advance free speech is to let the government be able to edit it or contort it. Yes, I know, this last part is simply an opinion.
You stated that what you posted is historical fact but it wasn't ALL the facts presented and also, calling Hannity a liar is not a fact even though I'm sure you feel that way. I hope this clears up my concern about the Fairness Doctrine.

Yeah, actually it is, and I know this from previous discussion; Hannity deliberately misled his listeners about what the Fairness Doctrine was. I say "deliberately" because he cannot be in broadcasting and not know that what he was putting out wasn't a crock of bullshit. But he's allowed to do that. On the other hand I cannot presume that he is your source, so if I implied that it was unfair. But Sean Hannity is absolutely a liar. It's documented.

And I gave you a Findlaw link to the entire Red Lion case; hard to see what more "context" you could need. It's all there. You don't give a link for your 1974 incident, so all I have is hearsay. And then you want to question my context. Interesting. I'll look forward to a fix. But again, the government never "edited" or "contorted" anybody under the Fairness Doctrine. That's what I've been inviting anyone for the last seven years to come up with, and no one has. Again, burden of proof. Doesn't exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't take Foxy's post as a "rebuttal"; what I posted was more a historical basis, albeit rambling, about how the business works. She and I both have extensive media backgrounds but mine is concentrated in broadcasting directly and I know the processes intimately.

I sense you may be unclear on the Fairness Doctrine; since I worked in broadcasting both before and after it (and trained people on it) perhaps I can clarify. The FD never dictated anything that could or could not be said; it was an FCC doctrine (not a law) that required a licensee, if and when they broadcast a one-sided strong opinion, to balance that opinion with an opposing viewpoint -- IF that opposing party requested it.

The most well-known example is Red Lion in 1969, where a station had broadcast a defamatory rant (personal attack) against a journalist, who requested airtime under the FD to respond. The station refused, and it went to SCOTUS, where the aggrieved journalist and the FD prevailed and said the journalist did have the right to respond.

The idea of the FD was that since broadcast space is limited and only a very few could use it (this was in the 1940s when there was no internet and TV hadn't taken a foothold), and since the airwaves are defined as belonging to the public, anyone licensed to operate on it must allow dissenting views (if it chose to take sides in the first place) by making airtime available as in the example above. It was pushed by Republicans actually, including Joe McCarthy, who used it to request airtime on Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" in 1954 after Murrow had broadcast his show on McCarthy. McCarthy was given the entire show to rebut the Murrow broadcast.

I trust these two examples illustrate how the FD worked. But at NO time did any government agency dictate what could or couldn't be said, and at NO time was any such consideration part of a license application. I've been deeply involved in license applications and I know whereof I speak on this.

Unfortunately the Sean Hannitys and liars of his ilk have gleefully misrepresented all this, presumably because they want a monologue, not a dialogue. Dialogue is what we're doing right here; monologue would be if I made this post and prevented you from responding to it.

Since the 1940s and 1980s the argument has been made that the scarcity of media has evolved and therefore the FD was abolished in the late '80s. I'd suggest you read up on this before following the Hannitys down the hole; your phraseology "let the marketplace decide" is fraught with rhetorical peril. Public discourse is not something that should be for sale to the highest bidder. Basically the FD was the regulatory incarnation of the First Amendment, applied to the new technology of the time.

As you might infer I've been over this issue for many years and on several message boards; I've repeatedly invited anyone anywhere to come up with a single incident where the Fairness Doctrine ever silenced an opinion. I'm still waiting for the first example, because none exists.

What I've posted here is historical fact, not opinion. The only opinion I posted in your quoted post was the word "despicable" and the concluding paragraph. Hope this helps.

I'm glad you pointed out Red Lion Broadcasting. I wish you had put it in more context though. The same court also warned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Five years later, though not ruling it unconstitutional, a different court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine "inescapably dampens the rigor and limits the variety of debate".
This is my biggest concern. No door should be left open for the PROBABILITY of governmental overreach. I do not believe the best way to advance free speech is to let the government be able to edit it or contort it. Yes, I know, this last part is simply an opinion.
You stated that what you posted is historical fact but it wasn't ALL the facts presented and also, calling Hannity a liar is not a fact even though I'm sure you feel that way. I hope this clears up my concern about the Fairness Doctrine.

Yeah, actually it is, and I know this from previous discussion; Hannity deliberately misled his listeners about what the Fairness Doctrine was. I say "deliberately" because he cannot be in broadcasting and not know that what he was putting out wasn't a crock of bullshit. But he's allowed to do that. On the other hand I cannot presume that he is your source, so if I implied that it was unfair. But Sean Hannity is absolutely a liar.

And I gave you a Findlaw link to the entire Red Lion case; hard to see what more "context" you could need. It's all there. You don't give a link for your 1974 incident, so all I have is hearsay. And then you want to question my context. Interesting. I'll look forward to a fix. But again, the government never "edited" or "contorted" anybody under the Fairness Doctrine. That's what I've been inviting anyone for the last seven years to come up with, and no one has. Again, burden of proof. Doesn't exist.

An excellent discussion of the so-called Fairness Doctrine here. (Adam Thierer is one of my heroes as perhaps one of the most knowledgeable media analysts of this generation.)

Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair

 

[Pogo]

For me it is all factual because I've been there and I still know a lot of folks who are there now.

Corporations have much less influence on the mainstream media than they do on PBS. Corporations tend to advertise where they can get the biggest bang for their advertising dollar and they care about that more than they care about the ideologal slant on the programming. A 30 share program, no matter how slanted, biased, or dishonest, will get its fair share of advertisers. Fox News gets a lot of good advertisers targeting a specific demographic regardless of where Fox places the ads within its programming schedule because Fox beats all the competition combined for that particular demographic.

Absolutely. The goal of (commercial) broadcasting is to deliver eyes and ears to the advertiser, however it can, no question about that. That's exactly the dynamic that keeps it from being objective and interesting, which is why that role falls to the public funding system (and by that I mean both government and voluntary support, neither of which carries quid pro quo).

Bottom line, LCD is what sells. Sadly. That's what makes television a "vast wasteland".

I'm not disputing you here Foxy (that comes later ) -- when I say I'd rather stay with the factual, I mean I'd rather stay with the historical. As opposed to getting into a pissing contest about "our guys and your guys" and who leans which way. I don't see any point in that.



You seem to have all kinds of delusions and presumptions lately about my relationship with Glenn Beck. Not going there.

In other words, corporations aka advertisers do not affect content in the free press as much as you would like to believe.'

But it is extremely naive to think that a government funded media is free press in any way, shape or form. It isn't. By its very nature it easily becomes a propaganda tool of government.

That's where you're dead wrong, Foxy. It's a nice conspiracy fantasy and all but I've been in the process, and I mean all the way inside the process -- inside the license applications, inside the CPB applications, down to the tiniest detail, and I can tell you categorically (and already have) that there is simply no ideological pressure in government funding therein, neither overt nor covert. I know it's a popular pastime to imagine all kinds of government bugaboos but reality is reality and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But it's your claim, so you have the burden of proof.

I imagine no proof would convince you, so I won't even try to find a link that you wouldn't accept anyway. And if you won't accept my experience as my own source, then we are at an impasse.

So you have nothing and your point fails.
What you would need is some part of some document that requires or influences a broadcaster as a condition of funding. I can save you some time looking-- it doesn't exist.

Suffice it to say that PBS or NPR would never in a million years admit to left leaning propensities while conservative commentators, pundits, and talk show hosts have little or no problem describing themselves as conservative.

And I bet you didn't even look at the various studies Media Research Center has pulled together that I did link.

Would you consider Heartland Institute a reliable source? Why or why not?

But if you would, what do you think about this critique of a PBS Frontline story. I was interested in this one because I watched that program last Fall and was especailly interested in Lakely's evaluation:
Critique of PBS Frontline?s ?Climate of Doubt? | Somewhat Reasonable

Again, I'm really not interested in getting into a pissing match about ideologies. Maybe I'll take a look at it separately, later, and thank you for the links, but no I didn't look at the MRC link although I'm already on their mailing list so I may have seen it.

Sorry, I really don't want to veer off to that tangent right now; I'd rather stay on the historical. You know how rare the concept of focus is for me

 

[Foxfyre]

My point is as good as your point. And I'm going to guess that my experience is probably as extensive as your experience. And I HAVE provided authoritative links to support my opinion, both historically and current whch you admit you haven't even looked at. And you have provided nothing other than your opinion. So let's don't get too excited about my point failing.