OK, lefties, this one’s for you.
Dennis “Starchild” Kucinich is floating the trial balloon; the left wants to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine”, which would require that broadcasters “balance” their politically-focused programming. This would either force stations to air liberal hosts (who are a drag on the market) or, as most stations did before 1987, steer for the safe, boring middle.
The Democrats want…
…well, let’s let Democrats tell us what they want. As we noted yesterday, Democrat blogger Taylor Marsh says:
Democrats are still behind in radio…instead of using their donor base to help hosts who could hold their own. Creating Democratic business consortiums that help hosts get on the air, with the best of us staying on and eventually catapulting to syndication. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference.
In other words, “let’s use government to force the market to do what we can’t make it do via talent and savvy”.
Obsessive Regular commenter “Doug” puts it another way; when asked if Fairness Doctrine supporters believed that the people were too stupid to process information for themselves, he responded:
No Mitch but they are too lazy.
OK, lefties – keep ’em coming. Why do you want to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine”?
What excuses do you have for parsing the First Amendment?
Comments must be on-topic; I will be uncharacteristically really ruthless about this today.
As usual, Mitch is as dishonest as he is arrogant.
In the thread to which Mitch refers, he asks,
“Do you (plural) believe the American people are too stupid to process information for themselves?
To which I responded,
“No Mitch but they are too lazy.”
When presenting this exchange, Mitch presents an entirely different question,
“when asked if Fairness Doctrine supporters believed that the people were too stupid to process information for themselves, he responded”
So we went from “American Perople” to “Fairness Doctrine supporters”. Of course anyone too lazy to go to the other thread would never have known Mitch’s little sleight of hand if I hadn’t pointed it out.
I wonder if anyone who visits this site appreciates irony enough to understand why Mitchs little game is so damn funny given the context of his original question.
Doug,
The context of the post was addressing liberals,(the plural “you”) who are the only supporters of the “fairness doctrine”.
Re-read your first clip, Doug; the post didn’t address “the American people”. Both addressed liberals and FD supporters.
Your reading comprehension is as flawed as your logic and your politics.
Read more carefully and answer the question. Your waffling and weaselling is amusing as always, but even my patience has limits.
(I wonder if anyone who visits this site appreciates the irony of Doug bleating one moment about “arrogance”, and calling the american people “too lazy” in another).
Your occasional support for free speech is laudable, Mitch. It would be nice if it extended beyond the right of corporations to shovel money at candidates and of broadcasters to put unlimited right-wing blather on the public airwaves. But I suppose this is a start.
By the way, I suspect Salon’s Daou Report link to Mitch’s fairness doctrine musings are to blame for his stated intention to be “ruthless” in censoring this discussion of free speech.
Your occasional support for free speech is laudable, Mitch.
Laudable, no. It’s part of being a citizen.
Occasional? Also rejected, Clown. I’ve been pretty ruthlessly consistent.
I suspect Salon’s Daou Report link to Mitch’s fairness doctrine musings are to blame for his stated intention to be “ruthless”
Erhm, no. This is the first I’ve heard of it.
Time to scotchguard the sofa.
“So we went from “American Perople” to “Fairness Doctrine supporters”. Of course anyone too lazy to go to the other thread would never have known Mitch’s little sleight of hand if I hadn’t pointed it out. ”
Doug.
Mitch provided two links to the original context (oops, I mean he cleverly and maliciously hid the original context via linking directly to the earlier comments). So what makes you think that anyone too “lazy” to use those links would take the time to rush to this thread’s comments seeking out your wisdom and guidance?
Is jbauer the old “jb”? Seriously.
“That way, when Hate-monger Limbaugh says that Cows create more air pollution than do people”
Hey DIPSHIT. THE UNITED NATIONS said cows create more greenhouse gasses than people. Rush Limbaugh was merely repeating the statement.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772
See, there’s a F A C T that A) YOU GOT WRONG and B) YOU’RE TOO BLINDERED WITH BDS TO REALIZE IT.
My God, arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, but that makes the brick wall look worse than it should. You’re wasting time and bandwidth with these novel-length postings that are HUGELY inaccurate, misguided and irrelevant. You have ZERO grasp of the free market concept, and wish to conform the rest of the country to your partisan, communistic ideals.
Blow it out your you know where.
Colleen-
You mean PB, I think. And the answer is “yes”.
Bill C. said: “THE UNITED NATIONS said cows create more greenhouse gasses than people.”
Don’t look at Angryclown. I’m eating ’em as fast as I can.
I’ll answer this one too:
“So, answer the counter question Mitch, if “fairness” didn’t do much to prevent the corporate dominance of the airwaves, and if the business responds to market pressure, and liberalism doesn’t sell (it’s boring), then why is there ANY liberal MSM, moreover, why is the MSM in the main, liberally biased (as you claim)”
Pure and simple: the MSM doesn’t have to stand up to the immediate scrutiny and counter-debate that talk radio does. If a liberal hears NARN, or Hewitt, or anyone else make a claim that the liberal disagrees with, he can call the show, and debate the host. MOST intellectually honest hosts will take at least a few liberal callers. If the host is any good, and knows his subject matter, taking liberals to debate on air makes for a better, more gripping radio show.
What is the equivalent in the newspapers? Write a letter to the editor that MIGHT get published, and if it does, it is several days after the fact. There is no way to respond to TV news shows, except the few that take letters from their viewers, but again, those are after the fact. The ONLY way people have a chance to counter-debate the MSM is to not consume it. Quit buying newspapers (which people are doing, as almost every single newspaper in the country has had devastating losses of subscribers and readers over the last few years with the surge of new media available) and quit watching the liberal news shows (which is happening, as FoxNEWS is kicking the ever loving CRAP out of everyone else). That is the free market in action. The Fairness Doctrine will use government force to drive out the free market, and AM radio will fade back to the bland plateau it was in the 70’s and 80’s.
Which is EXACTLY what the left wants to happen. It is the thorn in the side of leftist liberalism. They can’t survive the free market, so they will use the barrel of a gun to crush it out of existence.
Gee, kind of reminds you of every other dictatorship in history, doesn’t it?
MOST intellectually honest hosts will take at least a few liberal callers.
Indeed, many of us, if not most, give them priority in the call queue.
If Matt, our producer, tells me a caller is a liberal with a disagreement, they get on next. Every time.
Disagreement makes for better radio.
“Why do you want to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine”?
What excuses do you have for parsing the First Amendment?”
Because, as a matter of law, the airwaves are owned by the public, the broadcast rights are only leased to a particular company. As an owner, I want to get the best use out of my property. In the case of political commentary, I want a broad selection of viewpoints each argued forcefully. The fairness doctrine could help make that happen.
I am no radio market expert, so I can not say if the fairness docrtine is an effective or even the most effective means to that end, but the public does have the right to insist that public property is used for a public good.
I hardly violate your 1st Amendment rights if I say you can lease my printing press but you have to publish a broad spectrum of political commentary.
Because, as a matter of law, the airwaves are owned by the public, the broadcast rights are only leased to a particular company.
So you think the government has the right to tell people what they can do with this leased property?
As an owner, I want to get the best use out of my property. In the case of political commentary, I want a broad selection of viewpoints each argued forcefully. The fairness doctrine could help make that happen.
And how do you figure that will occur?
State your answer while being mindful of the context; the Fairness Doctrine squelched vigorous debate.
I hardly violate your 1st Amendment rights if I say you can lease my printing press but you have to publish a broad spectrum of political commentary.
So you’re saying the government is no different than any other lessor? And the government’s “property right” trumps the First Amendment rights of the Lessees?
Interesting interpretation.
“So you think the government has the right to tell people what they can do with this leased property?”
Yes. It leases land, but says you can only graze on it, not drill for oil.
As for the fairness doctrine, I am agnostic on it as a means. I think tryinq to enforce a diversity of viewpoints within each station or show is unlikely to be effective. But why not require more diversity between stations or shows?
RickDFL wrote:
“In the case of political commentary, I want a broad selection of viewpoints each argued forcefully. The fairness doctrine could help make that happen.”
When we had a fairness doctrine it didn’t happen. We got My Three Sons and Laverne & Shirley.
You now have a “broad selection of viewpoints each argued forcefully” courtesy of the unregulated internet, made possible by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, AT&T and Time Warner.
AC said:
Don’t look at Angryclown. I’m eating ‘em as fast as I can.
The Cows or the Greenhouse Gases?
If I’m an owner of the airwaves, can I sell my portion? If not, I’m not an owner.
Rick, as a good Democrat, you trust the political elite to ensure fairness. I’d prefer to trust the individual choices of people.
Laura Ingraham debated U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY 22) on this issue for two segments on Wednesday. It was sprited, informative, great radio, and ironically, showed why the Fairness Doctrine is not needed. Despite Hinchey’s fog of obfuscation, her skilled cross-examination and his unresponsive answers made it very clear what the true objective of the Fairness Doctrine is.
What I am refering to Mitch is that this thread is built on assumptions. Marsh believes in reinstating the fairness doctrine, Marsh is a democrat therefore all democrats must also believe it is a good idea to reinstate the fairnness doctrine.
A – Dennis Kucinich is not representative of the democratic party and B – asking the question as an exploratory excersise does not mean an endorsememt of reinstating the fairness doctrine.
The other assumption you’re making is based entirely on your “interpretation” of Marshs position which is incidently about media conglomeration. Mitch’s “interpretation” or more accurately, his “spin”?
“So here’s the question: Do you believe that people are too stupid to be trusted as consumers of free speech (as Ms. Marsh seems to)?
Because, as Ms. Marsh put it in about as many words, that’s really the only reason to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine”.
That’s another false assumption and the setup to another Bergian strawman argument. Hey Democrats, are you still beating your spouse?
More later. Heading off to court.
Doug: “A – Dennis Kucinich is not representative of the democratic party ”
True, Kucinich is, and always has been, in the moonbeam section of the Dems. He has, however, been a favorite of the “progressive” and “green” wings of the party. Perhaps we should characterize him as a representative of the progressive wing of the democratic party?
However, Doug’s claim of a strawman is a stretch. After all, he’s already called the public too lazy for unrestrained free speech, but he gets upset when Mitch characterizes the push for the doctrine as being motivated by a view that the proletariat is too stupid for said speech. Lazy, stupid, gee, Democrats have such a wonderful opinion of the public! I guess it explains their desire for intimate control of it!
Saint Paul:
Pull out your lawbooks. The people of the United States in the form of the U.S. Federal Government own the airwaves, just like Ft. Snelling. From time to time the U.S. government has sold leases to particular bands of the broadcast spectrum in return for very large sums of money. You can not sell ‘your’ portion any more than you can sell ‘your’ portion of Ft. Snelling or Mt. Rushmore. That is what makes public property different from private property. Of course, this is a democracy and if you elect people who want to sell off public property, that is possible. You may not like public ownership, but it is a perfectly ordinary form of property rights.
I dislike our current media environment because it is too dominated by elites. I want to enusre a broader variety of choice. Because access to the broadcast spectrum must for technical reasons be kept very limited, it is appropriate to enforce rules to promote a wide variety of viewpoints have access.
By deffinition a broadcast chanel in not part of a free market competition, but a government monoply. If I set up a TV station and broadcast on the Fox section of the spectrum, I would quickly find myself in jail.
“More later. Heading off to court.”
As long as it was less than an ounce, you should be fine.
Good luck to you!
Rick –
I’m not making a legalistic argument, it’s an economic one. If I am legally prohibited from controlling an asset’s disposition (or at least my share of it), I don’t own it.
The state owns the airwaves and Mt. Rushmore. My little vote can contribute to changing out the controllers of them. If I attained office, I temporarily could be one of those. But the feel-good collectivist rhetoric of individual citizens owning these things is absurd misdirection.
Most liberals like increased government control because tey think it will excercise its control in their interests. There is no better government than the good czar. You seem to under the impression that the nature of the czar will always be in your interests. Dangerous, ahistorical assumption.
“As long as it was less than an ounce, you should be fine.”
It’s probate court and it went fine. I haven’t haven’t had concerns about posession for about 21 years now
Saint Paul:
‘Ownership’ is a purely legal term. One element of economic theory is to study various legal ownership schemes. Economic theory does not preclude the abscence of private property, say a legal system in which all goods were owned by family or clan groups.
The efficiency of various forms of ownership is an empirical question. For most goods and services a robust private sector is the most efficient system. For other good and services, like health care insurance, public ownership is far better.
Every country has adopted a system of government monopolies for the airwaves. Each country awards those monopolies to various combinations of private and public entities with various regulations and restrictions. I have no idea which is the best.
For other good and services, like health care insurance, public ownership is far better.
This is far from conclusive.
Every country has adopted a system of government monopolies for the airwaves.
Unanswered; was this the right way to do it? More importantly, is it today?