War on Fox News

[mudwhistle]

I am currently waging a bloody battle with the tyrants of 24 hour news. They came to our people as saviors. Journalists on tap every hour of the day for every issue of the day. It was a lie though. These people were not journalists, they are entertainers and bad ones at that. I'm not saying if you watch MSNBC or Fox you are a total idiot that perpetuates the stupidity of the modern political process...Well actually I am saying that

I tune into MSNBC every once in awhile just so I can listen to a bunch of Gays telling how intelligent they are.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Uh, Foxy I'm not dealing in opinions in this thread. That is specifically the tangent I just said I'd rather not go into right now. Again I'm dealing with histories and dispelling myths; that comes first. So when you declare that public funding squelches free press, it's your burden of proof to document how it does that. And you can't, therefore your point fails.

I had a brief-- very brief-- look at your essay on the FD, thanks. Just a couple of quick impressions; (1) it's twenty years old and writing about a proposal that went nowhere and is still not going anywhere; and (2) it makes the same point I did in my post to John_Burke about the changing scope of media access, which is a fair point. Beyond that, to its philosophy on the nature of discourse, I'll have to get back to it later to give it the time it deserves; too much to do right now in the real world. Thanks.

 

[Pogo]

I am currently waging a bloody battle with the tyrants of 24 hour news. They came to our people as saviors. Journalists on tap every hour of the day for every issue of the day. It was a lie though. These people were not journalists, they are entertainers and bad ones at that. I'm not saying if you watch MSNBC or Fox you are a total idiot that perpetuates the stupidity of the modern political process...Well actually I am saying that

I tune into MSNBC every once in awhile just so I can listen to a bunch of Gays telling how intelligent they are.

-- and the sexual orientation of a talking head matters how again?

 

[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.

Uh, Foxy I'm not dealing in opinions in this thread. That is specifically the tangent I just said I'd rather not go into right now. Again I'm dealing with histories and dispelling myths; that comes first. So when you declare that public funding squelches free press, it's your burden of proof to document how it does that. And you can't, therefore your point fails.

I had a brief-- very brief-- look at your essay on the FD, thanks. Just a couple of quick impressions; (1) it's twenty years old and writing about a proposal that went nowhere and is still not going anywhere; and (2) it makes the same point I did in my post to John_Burke about the changing scope of media access, which is a fair point. Beyond that, to its philosophy on the nature of discourse, I'll have to get back to it later to give it the time it deserves; too much to do right now in the real world. Thanks.

But you won't acknowledge that I also have been arguing histories and dispelling myths. I know I have supported my argument and you have not. So I am on solid ground that your opinion and motives are in no way superior to mine. But your history is that you can't stand not having the last word. So I'll let you have it just so you understand that my not commenting further is in no way agreeing with you.

(Muttering. He insists on dealing with histories and then when I provide some he complains they are 20 years old. . . . .)

 

[Pogo]

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.

Uh, Foxy I'm not dealing in opinions in this thread. That is specifically the tangent I just said I'd rather not go into right now. Again I'm dealing with histories and dispelling myths; that comes first. So when you declare that public funding squelches free press, it's your burden of proof to document how it does that. And you can't, therefore your point fails.

I had a brief-- very brief-- look at your essay on the FD, thanks. Just a couple of quick impressions; (1) it's twenty years old and writing about a proposal that went nowhere and is still not going anywhere; and (2) it makes the same point I did in my post to John_Burke about the changing scope of media access, which is a fair point. Beyond that, to its philosophy on the nature of discourse, I'll have to get back to it later to give it the time it deserves; too much to do right now in the real world. Thanks.

But you won't acknowledge that I also have been arguing histories and dispelling myths. I know I have supported my argument and you have not. So I am on solid ground that your opinion and motives are in no way superior to mine. But your history is that you can't stand not having the last word. So I'll let you have it just so you understand that my not commenting further is in no way agreeing with you.

I already know we may have some areas of disagreement (and some of agreement) on opinions. and I don't believe one can be "superior" over another. But what I asked you for is any kind of documentation at all that would demonstrate a quid pro quo between public funding and a broadcaster.

Matters of whether a given thing exists are not matters of opinion, but fact. Sorry if I've been less than clear but that always was the question.

To your edit: what you linked is a blog, not a set of facts. Blogs are also opinions.

 

[Antares]

Nobody watches MSNBC, they have never been relevant.

obama said he was going to wage war on Fox. It goes back to 2009.

The Obama war against Fox News: Risky business? - latimes.com

PostPartisan - Obama's dumb war with Fox News

obama just decided to up the ante.

Just like reubs wage war on MSNBC. Both parties need to wage an all out war with these networks, along with the public. I will fight these people until I cant stand because they are ruining this country. filling the naive old and ideological young with drivel disguised as news. This is an issue that both parties should agree upon, even if it isnt obvious just yet.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uh, Foxy I'm not dealing in opinions in this thread. That is specifically the tangent I just said I'd rather not go into right now. Again I'm dealing with histories and dispelling myths; that comes first. So when you declare that public funding squelches free press, it's your burden of proof to document how it does that. And you can't, therefore your point fails.

I had a brief-- very brief-- look at your essay on the FD, thanks. Just a couple of quick impressions; (1) it's twenty years old and writing about a proposal that went nowhere and is still not going anywhere; and (2) it makes the same point I did in my post to John_Burke about the changing scope of media access, which is a fair point. Beyond that, to its philosophy on the nature of discourse, I'll have to get back to it later to give it the time it deserves; too much to do right now in the real world. Thanks.

But you won't acknowledge that I also have been arguing histories and dispelling myths. I know I have supported my argument and you have not. So I am on solid ground that your opinion and motives are in no way superior to mine. But your history is that you can't stand not having the last word. So I'll let you have it just so you understand that my not commenting further is in no way agreeing with you.

I already know we may have some areas of disagreement (and some of agreement) on opinions. and I don't believe one can be "superior" over another. But what I asked you for is any kind of documentation at all that would demonstrate a quid pro quo between public funding and a broadcaster.

Matters of whether a given thing exists are not matters of opinion, but fact. Sorry if I've been less than clear but that always was the question.

To your edit: what you linked is a blog, not a set of facts. Blogs are also opinions.

Well it is all opinion isn't it Pogo? All perception? But when folks won't accept my opinion, and I care, I try very hard to back it up with opinion of people with some very heavy credentials that give significant weight to their opinions however or wherever those opinions are expressed. Credentials I may or may not have.

And you support your opinion with. . . .well, your own opinion.

 

[Pogo]

But you won't acknowledge that I also have been arguing histories and dispelling myths. I know I have supported my argument and you have not. So I am on solid ground that your opinion and motives are in no way superior to mine. But your history is that you can't stand not having the last word. So I'll let you have it just so you understand that my not commenting further is in no way agreeing with you.

I already know we may have some areas of disagreement (and some of agreement) on opinions. and I don't believe one can be "superior" over another. But what I asked you for is any kind of documentation at all that would demonstrate a quid pro quo between public funding and a broadcaster.

Matters of whether a given thing exists are not matters of opinion, but fact. Sorry if I've been less than clear but that always was the question.

To your edit: what you linked is a blog, not a set of facts. Blogs are also opinions.

Well it is all opinion isn't it Pogo? All perception? But when folks won't accept my opinion, and I care, I try very hard to back it up with opinion of people with some very heavy credentials that give significant weight to their opinions however or wherever those opinions are expressed. Credentials I may or may not have.

And you support your opinion with. . . .well, your own opinion.

I cannot prove a negative, Foxy. No one can do that.

You made the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is yours. If there is such a document somewhere, I have yet to see it, even after being through the entire process of license application and that of CPB qualification. Your task would be to prove me wrong by showing us the document I missed -- and somehow got the applications through anyway.

As to the opinion part (the blog you linked), as I've already it deserves time I don't have right now -- which is why I didn't want to go down this path today. We can and will toss that salad later. It's worthy discussion. But right now I'm staying with the quantifiable.

See, I don't want to get so far behind on other stuff that I have to stay up late here because someone was wrong on the internets

Love ya Foxy

 

[JohnL.Burke]

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.

I was already to apologize for missing the tiny link you gave me but when I read the link from FindLaw I noticed that the information I had given was not mentioned in said link so I will stand by my previous comment that pointed out you (and now your link) left out some facts from the RED LION decision which I believe are important in the context of what we're discussing.
When you point out that the government never "edited" or "contorted" anybody under the Fairness Doctrine I believe you misunderstood what I said. I said I don't WANT the government "editing" and "contorting" opinion. I don't want the government having that option when there are so many cases of governmental overreaches. The IRS scandal is only the latest example of government "contorting" and "editing".
In terms of Sean Hannity. I am not a fan. He is a conservative one note cheerleader as opposed to a conservative thinker such as Charles Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell. I'm not sure I would call him a liar though since I don't watch his show. Since, however, you did not post any evidence then it's just hearsay.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I was already to apologize for missing the tiny link you gave me but when I read the link from FindLaw I noticed that the information I had given was not mentioned in said link so I will stand by my previous comment that pointed out you (and now your link) left out some facts from the RED LION decision which I believe are important in the context of what we're discussing.
When you point out that the government never "edited" or "contorted" anybody under the Fairness Doctrine I believe you misunderstood what I said. I said I don't WANT the government "editing" and "contorting" opinion. I don't want the government having that option when there are so many cases of governmental overreaches. The IRS scandal is only the latest example of government "contorting" and "editing".
In terms of Sean Hannity. I am not a fan. He is a conservative one note cheerleader as opposed to a conservative thinker such as Charles Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell. I'm not sure I would call him a liar though since I don't watch his show. Since, however, you did not post any evidence then it's just hearsay.

Yes it is effectively. I didn't think a throwaway subordinate clause merited its own link. I just had a look and that clip from four years ago is no longer available. You can see an allusion to it here with a partial quote, the lie being that the FD never took anybody's microphone away.

But I find it interesting that for a guy who claims not to be a Hannity watcher (though you didn't mention radio, where this occurred), you do seem to have a deep enough emotional attachment to him to make it an issue and take his side in defense.

That's something I find revealing, and here I go on my own tangent, because news -- which was the original topic-- isn't an emotional thing. It's dry and cold and clinical. None of us should have an emotional investment in one channel of information versus another-- that is, if what those channels are giving us is news. When we find an emotional attachment to a "news" source, it's a dead giveaway that what that source has been giving us is not news, but emotion. So when I see posts in here either fawning or defensive over a given commercial news source, it tells me a lot about the relationship they have, and what they're really buying.

Sorry for that diversion. The psychology fascinates me.

Now to your point of government editing and contorting, what you said was, "I do not believe the best way to advance free speech is to let the government be able to edit it or contort it" and that was directly after a reference to the Fairness Doctrine, so I think the connection was strongly implied. But I'm not sure how the IRS kerfuffle can be called "editing". You also posted, "saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did". My examples of Red Lion and Joe McCarthy were examples of what I think it did. What do you think it did?

Thank you for this discussion. My attendance may be sporadic (big weekend) but it's enlightening.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

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.

I was already to apologize for missing the tiny link you gave me but when I read the link from FindLaw I noticed that the information I had given was not mentioned in said link so I will stand by my previous comment that pointed out you (and now your link) left out some facts from the RED LION decision which I believe are important in the context of what we're discussing.
When you point out that the government never "edited" or "contorted" anybody under the Fairness Doctrine I believe you misunderstood what I said. I said I don't WANT the government "editing" and "contorting" opinion. I don't want the government having that option when there are so many cases of governmental overreaches. The IRS scandal is only the latest example of government "contorting" and "editing".
In terms of Sean Hannity. I am not a fan. He is a conservative one note cheerleader as opposed to a conservative thinker such as Charles Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell. I'm not sure I would call him a liar though since I don't watch his show. Since, however, you did not post any evidence then it's just hearsay.

Yes it is effectively. I didn't think a throwaway subordinate clause merited its own link. I just had a look and that clip from four years ago is no longer available. You can see an allusion to it here with a partial quote, the lie being that the FD never took anybody's microphone away.

But I find it interesting that for a guy who claims not to be a Hannity watcher (though you didn't mention radio, where this occurred), you do seem to have a deep enough emotional attachment to him to make it an issue and take his side in defense.

That's something I find revealing, and here I go on my own tangent, because news -- which was the original topic-- isn't an emotional thing. It's dry and cold and clinical. None of us should have an emotional investment in one channel of information versus another-- that is, if what those channels are giving us is news. When we find an emotional attachment to a "news" source, it's a dead giveaway that what that source has been giving us is not news, but emotion. So when I see posts in here either fawning or defensive over a given commercial news source, it tells me a lot about the relationship they have, and what they're really buying.

Sorry for that diversion. The psychology fascinates me.

Now to your point of government editing and contorting, what you said was, "I do not believe the best way to advance free speech is to let the government be able to edit it or contort it" and that was directly after a reference to the Fairness Doctrine, so I think the connection was strongly implied. But I'm not sure how the IRS kerfuffle can be called "editing". You also posted, "saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did". My examples of Red Lion and Joe McCarthy were examples of what I think it did. What do you think it did?

Thank you for this discussion. My attendance may be sporadic (big weekend) but it's enlightening.

I'm not a Hannity watcher. I meant in no way to suggest that I never heard of Hannity. I am also not a Chris Mathews watcher but I know what gives him a thrill up his leg. I should have stated at first that I often read about people in blogs, magazines and the occasional newspaper. I hope this clears up any confusion. Also, you called Hannity a liar without giving any evidence so I pointed out this was (so far) an opinion. I think it is important to distinguish the differences between fact and opinion since much of our dialogue has more than touched on this very topic. My opinion is that you agree with this fact.
You pointed out my skepticism when you said all the Fairness Doctrine did was level out the playing field and then brought up the fact that you brought up Joe McCarthy as a way to demonstrate that I somehow misunderstood your defense of the Fairness Doctrine. This comes under the heading of "I AM NOT A PSYCHIC". You defended the Fairness Doctrine in one post (the post I found odd) and then pointed out something completely different on another post. I can only reply to the posts that have been written. I cannot reply to posts that haven't been written yet. I only SEEM amazing.
Might I add that you positively compared The Fairness Doctrine to the USMESSAGEBOARD in terms of both insuring a level playing field. Of course the USMESSAGEBOARD does not insure a level playing field as defined by the government. Not even close.
In my opinion, many people confuse opinion with fact. When someone doesn't see a bias in networks like abc,cbs,nbc, this shows a bias in itself. Not perceiving bias where bias exists is its own bias, in other words.

My attendance may be sporadic as well since I will be practicing my premonition skills. It's already working! I see a hotdog in my future!

 

[Pogo]

I was already to apologize for missing the tiny link you gave me but when I read the link from FindLaw I noticed that the information I had given was not mentioned in said link so I will stand by my previous comment that pointed out you (and now your link) left out some facts from the RED LION decision which I believe are important in the context of what we're discussing.
When you point out that the government never "edited" or "contorted" anybody under the Fairness Doctrine I believe you misunderstood what I said. I said I don't WANT the government "editing" and "contorting" opinion. I don't want the government having that option when there are so many cases of governmental overreaches. The IRS scandal is only the latest example of government "contorting" and "editing".
In terms of Sean Hannity. I am not a fan. He is a conservative one note cheerleader as opposed to a conservative thinker such as Charles Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell. I'm not sure I would call him a liar though since I don't watch his show. Since, however, you did not post any evidence then it's just hearsay.

Yes it is effectively. I didn't think a throwaway subordinate clause merited its own link. I just had a look and that clip from four years ago is no longer available. You can see an allusion to it here with a partial quote, the lie being that the FD never took anybody's microphone away.

But I find it interesting that for a guy who claims not to be a Hannity watcher (though you didn't mention radio, where this occurred), you do seem to have a deep enough emotional attachment to him to make it an issue and take his side in defense.

That's something I find revealing, and here I go on my own tangent, because news -- which was the original topic-- isn't an emotional thing. It's dry and cold and clinical. None of us should have an emotional investment in one channel of information versus another-- that is, if what those channels are giving us is news. When we find an emotional attachment to a "news" source, it's a dead giveaway that what that source has been giving us is not news, but emotion. So when I see posts in here either fawning or defensive over a given commercial news source, it tells me a lot about the relationship they have, and what they're really buying.

Sorry for that diversion. The psychology fascinates me.

Now to your point of government editing and contorting, what you said was, "I do not believe the best way to advance free speech is to let the government be able to edit it or contort it" and that was directly after a reference to the Fairness Doctrine, so I think the connection was strongly implied. But I'm not sure how the IRS kerfuffle can be called "editing". You also posted, "saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did". My examples of Red Lion and Joe McCarthy were examples of what I think it did. What do you think it did?

Thank you for this discussion. My attendance may be sporadic (big weekend) but it's enlightening.

I'm not a Hannity watcher. I meant in no way to suggest that I never heard of Hannity. I am also not a Chris Mathews watcher but I know what gives him a thrill up his leg. I should have stated at first that I often read about people in blogs, magazines and the occasional newspaper. I hope this clears up any confusion. Also, you called Hannity a liar without giving any evidence so I pointed out this was (so far) an opinion. I think it is important to distinguish the differences between fact and opinion since much of our dialogue has more than touched on this very topic. My opinion is that you agree with this fact.
You pointed out my skepticism when you said all the Fairness Doctrine did was level out the playing field and then brought up the fact that you brought up Joe McCarthy as a way to demonstrate that I somehow misunderstood your defense of the Fairness Doctrine. This comes under the heading of "I AM NOT A PSYCHIC". You defended the Fairness Doctrine in one post (the post I found odd) and then pointed out something completely different on another post. I can only reply to the posts that have been written. I cannot reply to posts that haven't been written yet. I only SEEM amazing.
Might I add that you positively compared The Fairness Doctrine to the USMESSAGEBOARD in terms of both insuring a level playing field. Of course the USMESSAGEBOARD does not insure a level playing field as defined by the government. Not even close.
In my opinion, many people confuse opinion with fact. When someone doesn't see a bias in networks like abc,cbs,nbc, this shows a bias in itself. Not perceiving bias where bias exists is its own bias, in other words.

My attendance may be sporadic as well since I will be practicing my premonition skills. It's already working! I see a hotdog in my future!

Good to know -- if I don't like something you post, I'll just start listing the ingredients that that hot dog is made of...

One of us is confused though. Nothing in our exchange, other than the small original tangent about media monopoly, has been about opinion. Foxfyre wanted to go there but I didn't want to invest the time. Opinions are all free and equal, we can do that later, but I wanted to focus on the factual with the Fairness Doctrine, as that's my area of expertise.

So to clarify, both the story of Joe McCarthy and the description of Red Lion were presented as examples of how the Fairness Doctrine was used. There was no switch of thoughts intended there. Hannity is unimportant here; he's just a whipping boy for the sort of misconception I'm trying to address, so if he's not your source he's irrelevant.

The comparison to this message board is this:
if I make this post and express an opinion, you then can counter with your own. I can then counter your counter, and so on, right? This is called dialogue. Now if I had a message board where I could post, but you had no power to respond, that would be a monologue. I could post anything I wanted, e.g. "John Burke eats babies", and you couldn't do a thing about it. That's monologue, and nobody wants that.

The second scenario represents what a limited radio dial is like without the Fairness Doctrine; the first scenario represents what the FD was designed to address. In my 1949 radio station I go on the air and declare "John Burke eats babies"; you hear the broadcast and request airtime to rebut. With the Fairness Doctrine, I have to give it to you. Without it -- I don't.

What's not involved is any part of the government stepping in and declaring that I have to broadcast this material or I cannot broadcast that material. The exercise of the FD is up to you as the plaintiff; you request airtime to respond, I let you in. The government is not involved in that transaction, except to require me to give you that airtime.

And maybe this point is important: like other FCC complaints, the process is reactive. The Commission reacts to complaints brought by citizens; it does not go out and pro-actively seek out things to enforce (excepting egregious technical violations such as unlicensed (pirate) broadcasting). The complaint, or in the case of the FD the request for airtime, must come from a citizen. Doesn't come from the FCC or from any other part of the government.

That's as simple an analogy as I can make. I'd still be interested to hear your impression of how the FD worked, as you indicated. And also where you derived that impression.

On your end point, yes I fully agree people confuse opinion with fact. No doubt. We can pick that up at another time. Have a great weekend.

 

[Pogo]

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".

So John, your reference to that 1974 couirt case that had no link... I just came across the phrase you quoted, "inescapably dampens the rigor and limits the variety of debate" and if we're looking at the same case, this is Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) -- which is a case about a newspaper publishing statute in Florida .... nothing to do with broadcast law. Or with federal law, or with the FCC. Which means it's an entirely different thing.

But since you gave no reference, I'm left to assume this is the case. Let me know if it's not.

{edit: OK now I'm sure it's the same case, because I found your entire passage here was lifted -- virtially verbatim -- out of the same page that Foxfyre gave me.
No wonder you didn't have a link; I'm afraid you're quoting bits and pieces without grokking the whole.}

 

[American_Jihad]

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

Everything you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine in one post
Posted by Dylan Matthews at 04:25 PM ET, 08/23/2011 TheWashingtonPost

Everything you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine in one post - The Washington Post

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Yes it is effectively. I didn't think a throwaway subordinate clause merited its own link. I just had a look and that clip from four years ago is no longer available. You can see an allusion to it here with a partial quote, the lie being that the FD never took anybody's microphone away.

But I find it interesting that for a guy who claims not to be a Hannity watcher (though you didn't mention radio, where this occurred), you do seem to have a deep enough emotional attachment to him to make it an issue and take his side in defense.

That's something I find revealing, and here I go on my own tangent, because news -- which was the original topic-- isn't an emotional thing. It's dry and cold and clinical. None of us should have an emotional investment in one channel of information versus another-- that is, if what those channels are giving us is news. When we find an emotional attachment to a "news" source, it's a dead giveaway that what that source has been giving us is not news, but emotion. So when I see posts in here either fawning or defensive over a given commercial news source, it tells me a lot about the relationship they have, and what they're really buying.

Sorry for that diversion. The psychology fascinates me.

Now to your point of government editing and contorting, what you said was, "I do not believe the best way to advance free speech is to let the government be able to edit it or contort it" and that was directly after a reference to the Fairness Doctrine, so I think the connection was strongly implied. But I'm not sure how the IRS kerfuffle can be called "editing". You also posted, "saying that all the fairness doctrine did was level the playing field is an odd choice of words for what it actually did". My examples of Red Lion and Joe McCarthy were examples of what I think it did. What do you think it did?

Thank you for this discussion. My attendance may be sporadic (big weekend) but it's enlightening.

I'm not a Hannity watcher. I meant in no way to suggest that I never heard of Hannity. I am also not a Chris Mathews watcher but I know what gives him a thrill up his leg. I should have stated at first that I often read about people in blogs, magazines and the occasional newspaper. I hope this clears up any confusion. Also, you called Hannity a liar without giving any evidence so I pointed out this was (so far) an opinion. I think it is important to distinguish the differences between fact and opinion since much of our dialogue has more than touched on this very topic. My opinion is that you agree with this fact.
You pointed out my skepticism when you said all the Fairness Doctrine did was level out the playing field and then brought up the fact that you brought up Joe McCarthy as a way to demonstrate that I somehow misunderstood your defense of the Fairness Doctrine. This comes under the heading of "I AM NOT A PSYCHIC". You defended the Fairness Doctrine in one post (the post I found odd) and then pointed out something completely different on another post. I can only reply to the posts that have been written. I cannot reply to posts that haven't been written yet. I only SEEM amazing.
Might I add that you positively compared The Fairness Doctrine to the USMESSAGEBOARD in terms of both insuring a level playing field. Of course the USMESSAGEBOARD does not insure a level playing field as defined by the government. Not even close.
In my opinion, many people confuse opinion with fact. When someone doesn't see a bias in networks like abc,cbs,nbc, this shows a bias in itself. Not perceiving bias where bias exists is its own bias, in other words.

My attendance may be sporadic as well since I will be practicing my premonition skills. It's already working! I see a hotdog in my future!

Good to know -- if I don't like something you post, I'll just start listing the ingredients that that hot dog is made of...

One of us is confused though. Nothing in our exchange, other than the small original tangent about media monopoly, has been about opinion. Foxfyre wanted to go there but I didn't want to invest the time. Opinions are all free and equal, we can do that later, but I wanted to focus on the factual with the Fairness Doctrine, as that's my area of expertise.

So to clarify, both the story of Joe McCarthy and the description of Red Lion were presented as examples of how the Fairness Doctrine was used. There was no switch of thoughts intended there. Hannity is unimportant here; he's just a whipping boy for the sort of misconception I'm trying to address, so if he's not your source he's irrelevant.

The comparison to this message board is this:
if I make this post and express an opinion, you then can counter with your own. I can then counter your counter, and so on, right? This is called dialogue. Now if I had a message board where I could post, but you had no power to respond, that would be a monologue. I could post anything I wanted, e.g. "John Burke eats babies", and you couldn't do a thing about it. That's monologue, and nobody wants that.

The second scenario represents what a limited radio dial is like without the Fairness Doctrine; the first scenario represents what the FD was designed to address. In my 1949 radio station I go on the air and declare "John Burke eats babies"; you hear the broadcast and request airtime to rebut. With the Fairness Doctrine, I have to give it to you. Without it -- I don't.

What's not involved is any part of the government stepping in and declaring that I have to broadcast this material or I cannot broadcast that material. The exercise of the FD is up to you as the plaintiff; you request airtime to respond, I let you in. The government is not involved in that transaction, except to require me to give you that airtime.

And maybe this point is important: like other FCC complaints, the process is reactive. The Commission reacts to complaints brought by citizens; it does not go out and pro-actively seek out things to enforce (excepting egregious technical violations such as unlicensed (pirate) broadcasting). The complaint, or in the case of the FD the request for airtime, must come from a citizen. Doesn't come from the FCC or from any other part of the government.

That's as simple an analogy as I can make. I'd still be interested to hear your impression of how the FD worked, as you indicated. And also where you derived that impression.

On your end point, yes I fully agree people confuse opinion with fact. No doubt. We can pick that up at another time. Have a great weekend.

Let's agree that there was no "switch of thoughts intended", though perhaps you can understand my confusion.
OK, back to the Fairness Doctrine. As I understand it. The Fairness Doctrine forced radio stations to present issues of public importance in an equitable and balanced way. My OPINION is that letting government in the arena of news and opinion is a dangerous step. As for comparing the usmessageboard with the Fairness Doctrine. Well, the usmessageboard isn't forced to equalize debate nor is it forced to add equal time to different viewpoints. The point here is about government overreaching, slippery slopes and fascistic baby steps incrementally governing every aspect of our lives. Anyway, if you have a different definition of the Fairness Doctrine then please express why, or (in my case) reiterate. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish eating my baby. It's getting cold!

 

[Pogo]

Now then Foxy... to your link.

Actually I found (and maybe you will too) that there was more to chew on in the 2007 update to that page (which is here and linked on your original) so we can move on from the 20-years-old matter.

Aside from the 'spectrum scarcity' argument that we really have no quarrel over, the blog seems to want to make the case that radio is more interesting and more "free" now than it was then. Of course this is a subjective opinion (but again it is a blog so that's expected). But that doesn't really make a case. More on that momentarily.

It also cites some political abuses by the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations, although here it's short on details and dead-end on references (the links all seem to be dead). But that, in theory, would be problematic. I have to say, again it's empirical observation but I came into broadcasting after Nixon was already gone, and I didn't see this sort of thing going on, and I think a lot changed with Watergate about government trust and watchdogging. But we don't have much to go on here.

Back to the Heritage page, which reads in part:
>> It's no coincidence that such media as talk radio--virtually non-existent while the rule was in place--flowered after its repeal <<

Um, that's not how I remember pre-FD radio, and I've been immersed in radio all my life. Talk radio always existed, including controversial hosts, from Aimee Semple McPherson through Father Charles Coughlin who certainly gained notoriety in the 1930s to an audience of literally millions; I know my local dial had talk radio throughout my childhood, and I grew up listening to Jean Shepherd, so "non-existent" is just plain disingenuous. Even the format of all-talk radio goes back over fifty years (1960, see KMOX and KABC).

and later, same page:
>> talk radio, which had been a relatively rare format, exploded in scope and popularity. In 1990, there were some 400 stations with a talk show format nationwide. By 2006, there were more than 1,400 stations devoted entirely to talk formats.[14] <<

A bit melodramatic. What's left out is that the rise of FM radio in this period, with its superior fidelity made music scarce on the AM band, and the latter was left to concentrate on talk and sports. The blog grudgingly mentions FM after making this slanted point, but the absent context has already done its job.

...>> Programming shed its cottage cheese-like character, as controversial new hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, gained airtime and the freedom to express strong opinions and views without fear of regulatory reprisal. <<

Once again subjective opinion, but here I would agree in a twisted way; that the lifting of civic responsibility from public discourse did indeed give rise to the Rush Limbaughs. Naturally a brazen host who goes on the air as a caustic attack-dog is going to draw gawkers-- we would later call them "shock jocks" on music stations. At this point the only thing we might disagree on is whether waiving civic responsibility is a good thing. But bottom line, yes I agree the rescinding of the Fairness Doctrine is more than anything what set up Limblob, and his copiers, and in turn the deeply polarized atmosphere we have today. Again, the question is whether or not that's a good thing. We'll develop that ... somewhere.

Bottom, same page:
>> Moreover, arguments that the Fairness Doctrine is needed because certain types of media are too conservative, too negative, too partisan, or too anything actually strengthen the case against the regulation. Any law that is targeted at media based on the content of what is being said raises greater constitutional concerns and is much less likely to pass constitutional muster--and for good reason. Regulating speech in order to alter its content is exactly the sort of meddling that the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. It is simply not the job of politicians to "correct" the mix of opinions being expressed in the marketplace of ideas, even if--and especially if--they disagree with those opinions.<<

Obviously I agree with that; we all agree with that. But nobody made that suggestion (at the top) in the first place; it's a strawman argument.

When you break it all down, it's actually kind of a weak argument, if not empty. Sorry.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

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".

So John, your reference to that 1974 couirt case that had no link... I just came across the phrase you quoted, "inescapably dampens the rigor and limits the variety of debate" and if we're looking at the same case, this is Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) -- which is a case about a newspaper publishing statute in Florida .... nothing to do with broadcast law. Or with federal law, or with the FCC. Which means it's an entirely different thing.

But since you gave no reference, I'm left to assume this is the case. Let me know if it's not.

{edit: OK now I'm sure it's the same case, because I found your entire passage here was lifted -- virtially verbatim -- out of the same page that Foxfyre gave me.
No wonder you didn't have a link; I'm afraid you're quoting bits and pieces without grokking the whole.}

concerning the point you presented I suggest you read American Jihad's link. Look under the heading TESTED IN COURT. I

(edit: I certainly did some homework on the subject and any words I got from an article were certainly "quoted" however. If I really lifted something "virtually verbatim" please let me know what site that might have been on so I can see for myself and if guilty, I'll certainly try to do better next time. Thank you

 

[Pogo]

I'm not a Hannity watcher. I meant in no way to suggest that I never heard of Hannity. I am also not a Chris Mathews watcher but I know what gives him a thrill up his leg. I should have stated at first that I often read about people in blogs, magazines and the occasional newspaper. I hope this clears up any confusion. Also, you called Hannity a liar without giving any evidence so I pointed out this was (so far) an opinion. I think it is important to distinguish the differences between fact and opinion since much of our dialogue has more than touched on this very topic. My opinion is that you agree with this fact.
You pointed out my skepticism when you said all the Fairness Doctrine did was level out the playing field and then brought up the fact that you brought up Joe McCarthy as a way to demonstrate that I somehow misunderstood your defense of the Fairness Doctrine. This comes under the heading of "I AM NOT A PSYCHIC". You defended the Fairness Doctrine in one post (the post I found odd) and then pointed out something completely different on another post. I can only reply to the posts that have been written. I cannot reply to posts that haven't been written yet. I only SEEM amazing.
Might I add that you positively compared The Fairness Doctrine to the USMESSAGEBOARD in terms of both insuring a level playing field. Of course the USMESSAGEBOARD does not insure a level playing field as defined by the government. Not even close.
In my opinion, many people confuse opinion with fact. When someone doesn't see a bias in networks like abc,cbs,nbc, this shows a bias in itself. Not perceiving bias where bias exists is its own bias, in other words.

My attendance may be sporadic as well since I will be practicing my premonition skills. It's already working! I see a hotdog in my future!

Good to know -- if I don't like something you post, I'll just start listing the ingredients that that hot dog is made of...

One of us is confused though. Nothing in our exchange, other than the small original tangent about media monopoly, has been about opinion. Foxfyre wanted to go there but I didn't want to invest the time. Opinions are all free and equal, we can do that later, but I wanted to focus on the factual with the Fairness Doctrine, as that's my area of expertise.

So to clarify, both the story of Joe McCarthy and the description of Red Lion were presented as examples of how the Fairness Doctrine was used. There was no switch of thoughts intended there. Hannity is unimportant here; he's just a whipping boy for the sort of misconception I'm trying to address, so if he's not your source he's irrelevant.

The comparison to this message board is this:
if I make this post and express an opinion, you then can counter with your own. I can then counter your counter, and so on, right? This is called dialogue. Now if I had a message board where I could post, but you had no power to respond, that would be a monologue. I could post anything I wanted, e.g. "John Burke eats babies", and you couldn't do a thing about it. That's monologue, and nobody wants that.

The second scenario represents what a limited radio dial is like without the Fairness Doctrine; the first scenario represents what the FD was designed to address. In my 1949 radio station I go on the air and declare "John Burke eats babies"; you hear the broadcast and request airtime to rebut. With the Fairness Doctrine, I have to give it to you. Without it -- I don't.

What's not involved is any part of the government stepping in and declaring that I have to broadcast this material or I cannot broadcast that material. The exercise of the FD is up to you as the plaintiff; you request airtime to respond, I let you in. The government is not involved in that transaction, except to require me to give you that airtime.

And maybe this point is important: like other FCC complaints, the process is reactive. The Commission reacts to complaints brought by citizens; it does not go out and pro-actively seek out things to enforce (excepting egregious technical violations such as unlicensed (pirate) broadcasting). The complaint, or in the case of the FD the request for airtime, must come from a citizen. Doesn't come from the FCC or from any other part of the government.

That's as simple an analogy as I can make. I'd still be interested to hear your impression of how the FD worked, as you indicated. And also where you derived that impression.

On your end point, yes I fully agree people confuse opinion with fact. No doubt. We can pick that up at another time. Have a great weekend.

Let's agree that there was no "switch of thoughts intended", though perhaps you can understand my confusion.
OK, back to the Fairness Doctrine. As I understand it. The Fairness Doctrine forced radio stations to present issues of public importance in an equitable and balanced way. My OPINION is that letting government in the arena of news and opinion is a dangerous step. As for comparing the usmessageboard with the Fairness Doctrine. Well, the usmessageboard isn't forced to equalize debate nor is it forced to add equal time to different viewpoints. The point here is about government overreaching, slippery slopes and fascistic baby steps incrementally governing every aspect of our lives. Anyway, if you have a different definition of the Fairness Doctrine then please express why, or (in my case) reiterate. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish eating my baby. It's getting cold!

Aha - I knew it!
You know, they're really good with pepper sauce and a clove of garlic

I guess I'm not conveying the message board analogy. It requires imagination; to imagine that you could read this post but could not respond. That would be the equivalent of a radio station to which you couldn't respond because I have a radio station and you don't.

Enter onto this imaginary message board the Fairness Doctrine: now I am required to let you post a response. Or you don't have to respond at all; you can just eat another baby. The government doesn't care. My point is that you, the plaintiff, are the party that takes the action, not the government. All the FD did was protect your right to do that. The government doesn't post the response; you do. All the FD does is tell me that as a condition of my using the medium, I can't monopolize it.

Then again I started this day in this thread noting corporate consolidation --- which has the same effect. I find it odd that I run across a lot of people who will rail against both real and imaginary infringements of the government, yet say nothing of the same dynamic coming from the corporate culture that runs it.

By "it", do I mean the media, or the government? Answer: yes.

Have a fine weekend. Don't uh, eat too much.

 

[Pogo]

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".

So John, your reference to that 1974 couirt case that had no link... I just came across the phrase you quoted, "inescapably dampens the rigor and limits the variety of debate" and if we're looking at the same case, this is Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) -- which is a case about a newspaper publishing statute in Florida .... nothing to do with broadcast law. Or with federal law, or with the FCC. Which means it's an entirely different thing.

But since you gave no reference, I'm left to assume this is the case. Let me know if it's not.

{edit: OK now I'm sure it's the same case, because I found your entire passage here was lifted -- virtially verbatim -- out of the same page that Foxfyre gave me.
No wonder you didn't have a link; I'm afraid you're quoting bits and pieces without grokking the whole.}

concerning the point you presented I suggest you read American Jihad's link. Look under the heading TESTED IN COURT.

Huh? where?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Good to know -- if I don't like something you post, I'll just start listing the ingredients that that hot dog is made of...

One of us is confused though. Nothing in our exchange, other than the small original tangent about media monopoly, has been about opinion. Foxfyre wanted to go there but I didn't want to invest the time. Opinions are all free and equal, we can do that later, but I wanted to focus on the factual with the Fairness Doctrine, as that's my area of expertise.

So to clarify, both the story of Joe McCarthy and the description of Red Lion were presented as examples of how the Fairness Doctrine was used. There was no switch of thoughts intended there. Hannity is unimportant here; he's just a whipping boy for the sort of misconception I'm trying to address, so if he's not your source he's irrelevant.

The comparison to this message board is this:
if I make this post and express an opinion, you then can counter with your own. I can then counter your counter, and so on, right? This is called dialogue. Now if I had a message board where I could post, but you had no power to respond, that would be a monologue. I could post anything I wanted, e.g. "John Burke eats babies", and you couldn't do a thing about it. That's monologue, and nobody wants that.

The second scenario represents what a limited radio dial is like without the Fairness Doctrine; the first scenario represents what the FD was designed to address. In my 1949 radio station I go on the air and declare "John Burke eats babies"; you hear the broadcast and request airtime to rebut. With the Fairness Doctrine, I have to give it to you. Without it -- I don't.

What's not involved is any part of the government stepping in and declaring that I have to broadcast this material or I cannot broadcast that material. The exercise of the FD is up to you as the plaintiff; you request airtime to respond, I let you in. The government is not involved in that transaction, except to require me to give you that airtime.

And maybe this point is important: like other FCC complaints, the process is reactive. The Commission reacts to complaints brought by citizens; it does not go out and pro-actively seek out things to enforce (excepting egregious technical violations such as unlicensed (pirate) broadcasting). The complaint, or in the case of the FD the request for airtime, must come from a citizen. Doesn't come from the FCC or from any other part of the government.

That's as simple an analogy as I can make. I'd still be interested to hear your impression of how the FD worked, as you indicated. And also where you derived that impression.

On your end point, yes I fully agree people confuse opinion with fact. No doubt. We can pick that up at another time. Have a great weekend.

Let's agree that there was no "switch of thoughts intended", though perhaps you can understand my confusion.
OK, back to the Fairness Doctrine. As I understand it. The Fairness Doctrine forced radio stations to present issues of public importance in an equitable and balanced way. My OPINION is that letting government in the arena of news and opinion is a dangerous step. As for comparing the usmessageboard with the Fairness Doctrine. Well, the usmessageboard isn't forced to equalize debate nor is it forced to add equal time to different viewpoints. The point here is about government overreaching, slippery slopes and fascistic baby steps incrementally governing every aspect of our lives. Anyway, if you have a different definition of the Fairness Doctrine then please express why, or (in my case) reiterate. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish eating my baby. It's getting cold!

Aha - I knew it!
You know, they're really good with pepper sauce and a clove of garlic

I guess I'm not conveying the message board analogy. It requires imagination; to imagine that you could read this post but could not respond. That would be the equivalent of a radio station to which you couldn't respond because I have a radio station and you don't.

Enter onto this imaginary message board the Fairness Doctrine: now I am required to let you post a response. Or you don't have to respond at all; you can just eat another baby. The government doesn't care. My point is that you, the plaintiff, are the party that takes the action, not the government. All the FD did was protect your right to do that. The government doesn't post the response; you do. All the FD does is tell me that as a condition of my using the medium, I can't monopolize it.

Then again I started this day in this thread noting corporate consolidation --- which has the same effect. I find it odd that I run across a lot of people who will rail against both real and imaginary infringements of the government, yet say nothing of the same dynamic coming from the corporate culture that runs it.

By "it", do I mean the media, or the government? Answer: yes.

Have a fine weekend. Don't uh, eat too much.

Are we focusing on different aspects of the Fairness Doctrine? Is that where the confusion is coming from? Perhaps. You then railed against some corporate culture thing but I'll let it slide since I'm not an expert on this particular conspiracy theory. I do believe corporations have done wrong doing if that's your point. At the same time, they're not trying to come up with the corporate version of the Fairness Doctrine so that's a good thing at least.