What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Quantum Windbag]

1. No, it didn't.



Yeah, actually it does. Idiot.

This is from the guy that sends a neg rep demanding that I learn how to debate.

Tell me something, Oh Great Master of Nothing, how is requiring a station to cover controversial topics, even if they don't want to, not about content? Why does the Supreme Court disagree with you?

That refers to your relentless crutch of ad hominem. If you ever figure your way out of that crutch you might be ready for your first debate.

And again, for at least the third time, stations were not "required to cover controversial topics". How the fuck would you measure that? Again, you get what you pay for in terms of sources. About.com is like Wiki-wannabe without a proofreader.

Depending on what defines "controversial" (what defines "obscenity"?), the radio where I worked during the active Fairness Doctrine either never covered controversial topics, OR we did cover them literally every day and never found ourselves forced to bring in a rebuttal. But then again we never went on the air and slandered anybody.

(/still offtopic)

Funny how the self declared expert on the Fairness Doctrine has proven himself completely incapable of actually defining it.

So, tell us, of master of nothing, what was the Fairness Doctrine all about if it wasn't about everything every person who posted a link that defined it says it is. Do you, perhaps, have a link to Walter Cronkite discussing on CBS Evening News? After all, it if doesn't come from a broadcaster, they can't read.

 

[Pogo]

Your relentless ad hominem bullshit is tedious, banal and extremely dull. And I recognize that your purpose in mass board spamming is to bury my posts. I had hope you might learn how to debate but fuck it, you're going on Ignore where you should have been a long time ago. I'll entertain the conscious here who post for the purpose of making actual points rather than for no higher purpose than setting some USMB record for contrarian posts about nothing.

Aloha.

 

[Uncensored2008]

pppffft. Your comparison is absolute bullshit. I've been stressing thoughout the thread (read it) that the FD has never had anything to do with print media.

Don't strain yourself moving those goal posts.

The FCC only has jurisdiction over broadcasts on the public airwaves - based on the flimsy claim that broadcast frequencies belong to the state, who grants privilege to those who play by the rules that the state puts forth.

It was never part of the design, never part of the basis, and NO print media has ever been under any purview of the FCC, ever. Any lawyer who would try to make that case against a newspaper is gaming the system. And the reasoning in your link that it doesn't apply (finite airspace) is exactly what I've been saying throughout. DUH!?

And?

I don't know from Herschensohns but that would be a programming decision -- where's the fine?

It was pretty big news, at the time. I don't see it on the web, but that isn't a surprise.

Again, both Henry and I have noted this, the FCC doesn't "monitor for compliance". It responds to complaints. The initiative is on the public, not the agency. But the first half is correct; I would have to give you airtime. Just as I have to let you respond to these posts.

Irrelevant.

Just like the mods don't monitor every post here, and act when someone hits that "report" key, the FCC acts when a complaint is filed.

Should I be able to just delete your posts instead of answering them?
See those buttons that say "quote" and "post reply"? That's the operational equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine. Should the site remove them?

Should you be able to sober up before posting?

So in the line above you whine that an aggrieved party should not get time to respond; now you're arguing he doesn't get enough.... ?
Well that's about the fastest 180 I've seen all day. Pass the Dramamine.

FWIW McCarthy got exactly the same time that Murrow had for his exposé. If you have "years of slander" or "years" of anything, let's see evidence. Toss it in with that elusive KABC fine and save on shipping.

Hey here's a question. ---

Could someone explain to me why conservatives hate the idea of a Fairness Doctrine if the media is as liberal as they say it is? Wouldn't a balancing factor work to your ideological advantage?



Seriously, you guys are all over the reasoning map. It's like being a passenger in car stuck in a traffic circle.

(/offtopic)

Not my point, as you know.

Giving a half hour response is hardly "equal time" when Murrow dedicate all the resources of the network to destroying the man.

It was an absurd gesture with no impact. CBS will mold the news to their own purpose, they always have, and that purpose has always been the promotion of the democratic party. Just as Rush Limbaugh molds his show to promote the Republicans.

 

[HenryBHough]

Inescapable:

The Fairness Doctrine is dead.
It should have never existed.
It was not applied to print media because even the most vicious recognized the constitutional issue.
The left wants to bring it back to silence the right
The current Democrat/RINO FCC got suckered into building a wedge to get the ball rolling
They got their wedge wedged up where the sun fails to shine
Their acolytes are bitter and vengeful

Conclusion:

This WILL be back.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your relentless ad hominem bullshit is tedious, banal and extremely dull. And I recognize that your purpose in mass board spamming is to bury my posts. I had hope you might learn how to debate but fuck it, you're going on Ignore where you should have been a long time ago. I'll entertain the conscious here who post for the purpose of making actual points rather than for no higher purpose than setting some USMB record for contrarian posts about nothing.

Aloha.

Can't answer the question oh he of the less than infinite wisdom?

 

[Pogo]

pppffft. Your comparison is absolute bullshit. I've been stressing thoughout the thread (read it) that the FD has never had anything to do with print media.

Don't strain yourself moving those goal posts.

The FCC only has jurisdiction over broadcasts on the public airwaves - based on the flimsy claim that broadcast frequencies belong to the state, who grants privilege to those who play by the rules that the state puts forth.

Wrong again Pothead. You're not reading. The airwaves belong to the public. And the FCC is our arm, via Congress, to allocate them. Who else is gonna do it? You and me from our barcaloungers?

And the other part you didn't read -- the only reason the FD was even considered was that broadcast uses a finite resource; there are only X number of spots on the dial. That's not true of print media unless you run out of trees. Therefore it's never been a valid comparison. It would have been bullshit in 1949 and it's still bullshit now. Just as the laws of radio propagation haven't changed since 1927 when we started regulating who gets to broadcast on them. So your point continues to fail. It's what happens when you build one on a house of cards.

It was never part of the design, never part of the basis, and NO print media has ever been under any purview of the FCC, ever. Any lawyer who would try to make that case against a newspaper is gaming the system. And the reasoning in your link that it doesn't apply (finite airspace) is exactly what I've been saying throughout. DUH!?

And?

And your point fails because it's based on fantasy. What part of "you're making up your own basis" don't you get?

It was pretty big news, at the time. I don't see it on the web, but that isn't a surprise.

See above. When you make it up in your own head, you're not gonna find it outside. Reality doesn't work that way.

Irrelevant.

Relevant, since you just posted, and I quote:

And if you didn't give me airtime, and I filed a complaint, then the FCC fined you and monitored you for complience [sic].

Just like the mods don't monitor every post here, and act when someone hits that "report" key, the FCC acts when a complaint is filed.

Exactly, a fine analogy. And the same point you just said was "irrelevant". Yet another 180. Did I see you in the Olympics with skates on? Because you're doing the fastest spinning on a single point that I've ever seen.

Should I be able to just delete your posts instead of answering them?
See those buttons that say "quote" and "post reply"? That's the operational equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine. Should the site remove them?

Should you be able to sober up before posting?

Translation: "Waah, I lost the point". Next...

So in the line above you whine that an aggrieved party should not get time to respond; now you're arguing he doesn't get enough.... ?
Well that's about the fastest 180 I've seen all day. Pass the Dramamine.

FWIW McCarthy got exactly the same time that Murrow had for his exposé. If you have "years of slander" or "years" of anything, let's see evidence. Toss it in with that elusive KABC fine and save on shipping.

Hey here's a question. ---

Could someone explain to me why conservatives hate the idea of a Fairness Doctrine if the media is as liberal as they say it is? Wouldn't a balancing factor work to your ideological advantage?



Seriously, you guys are all over the reasoning map. It's like being a passenger in car stuck in a traffic circle.

(/offtopic)

Not my point, as you know.

Giving a half hour response is hardly "equal time" when Murrow dedicate all the resources of the network to destroying the man.

It was an absurd gesture with no impact. CBS will mold the news to their own purpose, they always have, and that purpose has always been the promotion of the democratic party. Just as Rush Limbaugh molds his show to promote the Republicans.

What Murrow used was McCarthy's own statements and actions so those would be McCarthy's resources. And when McCarthy went on the air with his rebuttal, he too was using the resources of the network, let alone his own resources of the Senate. And as a point of history, Murrow was to a degree shooting the wounded by that point, as McCarthy had already disgraced himself in public opinion. It wasn't exactly a turning point. But my challenge to you was to justify your, again I quote:

years of slander by Edward R. Goebbels

-- and once again you came up with crickets. Because you made that up too.

And ironic reference to a reporter that made his name and won his awards reporting from the European war theater on the siege against Naziism as "Edward R. Goebbels".

(or didn't you know that?)




Get a hold of yourself. Y'all flailing around like this gonna leave me with nobody to play with except Henry. And I'm not sure how tightly his coils are wound.

(/still yet again offtopic)

 

[HenryBHough]

This horse is dead.
The only reason to continue flogging it might be necrophilia.

 

[Pogo]

Inescapable:

The Fairness Doctrine is dead.
It should have never existed.
It was not applied to print media because even the most vicious recognized the constitutional issue. --- link?
The left wants to bring it back to silence the right --- link?
The current Democrat/RINO FCC got suckered into building a wedge to get the ball rolling --- basis?
They got their wedge wedged up where the sun fails to shine
Their acolytes are bitter and vengeful

Conclusion:

This WILL be back.

This just in: newspapers and print media were around WAY before broadcasting. Nobody ever suggested "there is a finite amount of paper stock and therefore we have to allocate who gets paper". Never happened. The FD was envisioned specifically because the radio and TV dial specifically WAS so limited.

Hold on, this just in.... I'm just being told that "as a broadcaster you already know all this". I guess the memory is the second thing to go. But again, feel free to prove me wrong.

Let's just revisit this one though:

The left wants to bring it back to silence the right

Again I put it to you: if we have such a "liberal media" ............. why would you be against having the ability to respond?

Can't have it both ways Henry. Either the media is "liberal" and needs a balance, or the media is not "liberal" and doesn't. Which is it?

Now back to Millihenry for reply, because we have a fairness doctrine here called the reply button. Take it.


(/offtopic)

 

[American_Jihad]

Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?​

By
Matthew Clark
Filed in:
FREE SPEECH
4:44 PM
Feb. 18, 2014

The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.

The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of “critical information” “that it believes local newscasters should cover.”

...

Government Monitors in Newsrooms? | Free Speech, American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

 

[Pogo]

Jizzhat finds yet another thread to use as his personal poubelle for shit he finds on the internets that have already been debunked in the thread...

 

[mudwhistle]

Yeah, besides, they pulled the plug on it anyway.

 

[HenryBHough]

For now.

 

[S.J.]

The left already has the media in it's pocket. Putting feds in mainstream media newsrooms is a charade. This is merely a roundabout way of defanging Fox News.

 

[Pogo]

The left already has the media in it's pocket. Putting feds in mainstream media newsrooms is a charade. This is merely a roundabout way of defanging Fox News.

Yeah, it all started with "racist" audience demographics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, besides, they pulled the plug on it anyway.

The Pogo line is: "IT NEVER HAPPENED, and besides, they stopped..."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jizzhat finds yet another thread to use as his personal poubelle for shit he finds on the internets that have already been debunked in the thread...

How can you tell when Pogo lost a debate?

He starts a debate.

 

[Pogo]

What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"

 

[mudwhistle]

What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"

And you have the documentation that proves it. Guess we could cherry-pick which rules we want to adhere to...... Like Obama and Eric Holder.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"

You got a new word of the year calendar? About time.

 

[Pogo]

What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"

And you have the documentation that proves it. Guess we could cherry-pick which rules we want to adhere to...... Like Obama and Eric Holder.

The "documentation" is the last several posts. That's what I refer to.

As far as cherrypicking rules, well, seeing as how FCC's doing what it's required to do here, I guess they should have cherrypicked this one off the "to do" list...