Comments on: A Liberal "Unfairness Principle"

National Review Online: Attempt To Force Balance In Talk Radio Is Wrongheaded

[jimmyc1955]

The use of Fairness Doctrun is out of context on this issue.

The Fairness Doctrine was created to ensure that politicians got fair access to broadbase time. If politician A had 1 hour of time on radio station WXYZ - then his opponent was to also recieve 1 hour of time on that same station.

What your proposing is that those who are NOT running for office must also have a fairness doctrine because they engage in political speach. If you apply that concept just slightly more broadly - that means that opinion pieces on TV must be fair - and it will be up the the "parties" involved to define and decide what is fair.

So - for every smarmy comment from Katy Coric we should have an equally smarmy comment for Ann Coulter???

[jimmyc1955]

rudy654

Your dodging the question - do Al Gore and Michael Moore publish and use lies, deciet and misinformation for their own benefit?

Your myopic focus on AM talk radio is, in my opinion only part of the problem. Correcting one part without correcting all parts is what this argument is all about. AM talk radio only addresses a small percentage of the US population. Michael Moore also addresses only a small percent of the US population. Mr. Moore will address those who WANT - desperately want - to believe what he spews forth - and he has been proven to have deliberatly lied over and over.

So - If you propose to correct the AM talk radio - what do you propose to correct Michael Moore and Al Gore use of the movie theater?

[thinkbeyond]

Everyone, including Hightower and Franklin, seems to be missing the point as to why liberal talk radio fails. True free-thinking individuals, true "liberals" if you will, don't want to be told what to believe, even by someone they might agree with. Right-wing conservatives need Limbaugh and Hannity to tell them what their opinions are. Their hold on talk radio supremacy is secure.

[actornaught]

"I had a cop who harassed me ... I... found out where he lived, and poured sugar in his gas tank late one night. To add insult to injury, I very carefully smeared poison ivy on his car's door handle. The cop never bothered me again.
...
Posted by processor2 at 04:11 PM : Jun 26, 2007"

Interesting post. Did you say 'hypocrisy'?

[processor2]

Liberals are amazing in their hypocrisy.

They want to censor and silence those they disagree with, like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News,
while simultaneously telling us how tolerant and open-minded they are to diversity.

Liberals....tolerant... yeah,right

IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE TRUE INTOLERANCE, all you have to do is disagree with a liberal, and then listen to the hatred spew.

For proof, just read the comments below from some of these so-called tolerant liberals.

...

[actornaught]

WHAT in the Fairness Doctrine says that rush, fox, or anybody, CAN'T say what they've been saying all along? WHAT says they would be censored?

Why is neocon radio & tv afraid?

By the way, rush is a liar, he's admitted it. Remember "carrying the water"? Also, remember years back he called himself "the epitome of righteousness and virtue"? What happened their, rush fans? How about the many times he said he was "someone you wouldn't be afraid to leave your daughter alone with in a motel room"? Creepy stuff to look back on.

[sparks224]

Seriously though, don't you think rush looks high in that picture?

[archangelric]

3 facts

1.) Conservatives listen to talk radio, it doesn't confuse them with reality, word images can be created in fantasy.

2.) The FCC was created to regulate the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S airwaves for the benefit of the people. There were limits created early on as to how many radio outlets could be owned by 1 company, as having only a very few editorial voices was considered a major danger to the Republic. The Federal Communications Act recognized this issue and the commission was supposed to insure a multitude of voices as stations broadcast in the public interest.

The Big Media Monopolies are a relatively new creation, they exercise a private censorship of ownership; they censor views that do not support their methods, motives, lifestyle.

3. Free Markets also demand that No one have more than one voice, one station (having more constitutes an unfree restraint-of-trade against each other; i.e.each is supposed to be competing with counter programming); would that we actually had free markets anywhere in our economy.

It appears that this proposal is an attempt to return radio to a system similar to what it was in place not too many years ago; before Clear Channel, etc. The limit on stations was very small, and we had much freer markets.

[jimc52]

Propaganda and Polarization both start with a "P." What we need is neither liberal or conservative rhetoric. We need talk that brings America back together again. Flinging words and hurtling insults at each other isn't going to make America work..neither the left or right have the total answer. It requires both to pull together. The polarization and the hypocrisy which causes it, is what makes America sick. Neither Rush or his counterpart on the left are with it. Frankly, I am sick of the blaming and want to get on with pulling this country back together again. Just watch a movie from the '70s and ask yourself how much America has become divided from the way we lived then. Ultimately, we are all loosers when either side creates the kind of hate and friction we know all too well. The National Review Online needs to think about this and change their rhetoric.

[rudy654-2009]

"They are, and have always been since their establishment, a means of censorship."

Before the FCC, there was the FRC. But the history of controlling the radio waves goes back to the sinking of the Titanic, which was the actual catalyst for government control of the airwaves. As a response, the Radio Act of 1912 required all ships to leave their radios running 24 hours a day. It also required all radio transmitters to be licensed. However, it didn%u2019t solve the problem of spectrum scarcity, as it didn%u2019t assign the government power to require a station to broadcast on a specific frequency. In fact, the provisions under the Radio Act of 1912 became unenforceable.

The Radio Act of 1927 established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), which then was able to assign frequencies and limit broadcasters, thus clearing up the airwaves.

The Radio Act of 1927 not only gave power to the government to assign frequencies and revoke licenses for noncompliance with rules, but it also created a provision for creating beneficial broadcasts for the public. This may be because of an %u2018underlying assumption%u2019 of the act that the public owned the airwaves. This assumption no doubt led to the idea of radio functioning for %u201Cpublic interest, convenience, and necessity."