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.
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)
