ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
LMAO if you think the Fairness Doctrine was the reason people were less angry back then.
I expect its 1 aspect of it. Is it the only one? Almost certainly not, but there was far less venom in public media then than there is now, and I argue that public media is (unfortunately) surprisingly influential. This is just based on the number of people who parrot the same arguments they get from TV.
It might be interesting to hear what your opinions and evidence on the subject are, though. It's a vastly interesting topic. I'd say another element is a stronger middle class thanks to unions, attacks on laissez faire markets and monopolies, increased nationalization, and greater social stability thanks to Keynesian economics. But that's probably for another thread.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Your store is not licensed from public property. Airwaves are. Is it appropriate to use property owned by the people to deliver political propaganda? I say no. The Supreme Court says that this speech can be regulated.
Also, political ideologies are probably not analogous to soft drinks or consumer products.
You get the point though don't you? Why should air ways be clogged up with stations that aren't being listened to.........or would you eliminate stations that were being listened to in order to be "fair" to stations that do not attract listeners and cannot support their own existence………and if they cannot support their own existence, who then pays for their existence?
And BTW since when are lefty stations like air America any less full of political propaganda? What if it was the other way around? What if no one listened to right wing stations and everyone listened to left wing stations? Would you be all for it then? I wouldn't. I learned from an old boss a long time ago that if you wanted to have the tallest building then build it. Don't build a short one and then go around knocking all the taller ones down so yours is the tallest one remaining. There is something very fascist feeling about this doctrine.
You get the point though don't you? Why should air ways be clogged up with stations that aren't being listened to.........or would you eliminate stations that were being listened to in order to be "fair" to stations that do not attract listeners and cannot support their own existence………and if they cannot support their own existence, who then pays for their existence?
And BTW since when are lefty stations like air America any less full of political propaganda? What if it was the other way around? What if no one listened to right wing stations and everyone listened to left wing stations? Would you be all for it then? I wouldn't. I learned from an old boss a long time ago that if you wanted to have the tallest building then build it. Don't build a short one and then go around knocking all the taller ones down so yours is the tallest one remaining. There is something very fascist feeling about this doctrine.
This is where it just comes down to good journalism being left wing because the nature of journalism is to be anti-establishment or at least not defer to the establishment. I made a post about this a long time ago but I don't remember where it was. I don't really want a democrat and republican station but I think public radio and public television are essential. Money shouldn't play a factor in information. The news isn't suppost to pander to popularity IMO. Republicans hate the BBC, and it definitely has its shortcomings, and they hate NPR, but in terms of substance and good journalism I think it puts corporate outlets to shame. And I don't like MSNBC or CNN.
You get the point though don't you? Why should air ways be clogged up with stations that aren't being listened to.........or would you eliminate stations that were being listened to in order to be "fair" to stations that do not attract listeners and cannot support their own existence………and if they cannot support their own existence, who then pays for their existence?
And BTW since when are lefty stations like air America any less full of political propaganda? What if it was the other way around? What if no one listened to right wing stations and everyone listened to left wing stations? Would you be all for it then? I wouldn't. I learned from an old boss a long time ago that if you wanted to have the tallest building then build it. Don't build a short one and then go around knocking all the taller ones down so yours is the tallest one remaining. There is something very fascist feeling about this doctrine.
No, I would never support everybody listening to Air America. I've never listened to it myself.
And the regulation does not aim to eliminate stations, it aims to regulate content on stations. It wouldn't necessarily clog the airwaves with stations nobody listened to - existing ones would just turn to providing different content (this is the effective result since it's what happened when the doctrine was in play).
As for it being fascist - well, we had the law in this country for 40 years during arguably our golden age. We removed the regulation and politics turned ugly and stupid. (That's not a definitive proof but it's how I see it.)
I think a show like Rush Limbaugh does not serve the public interest. If he wants to go on cable TV or satellite radio, then fine. He can do that.
And the regulation does not aim to eliminate stations, it aims to regulate content on stations. It wouldn't necessarily clog the airwaves with stations nobody listened to - existing ones would just turn to providing different content (this is the effective result since it's what happened when the doctrine was in play).
I think one thing that is missing is the context in which the law was created. Back then there were very limited options for what to listen to. In a circumstance in which rural areas may have only gotten 1 radio station I can see a need for ensuring fairness in that 1 station. (I also believe this was the intent of the Supreme Court's decision and I suspect you do too and are choosing to ignore it to suit your argument). Today however we do NOT even in the most rural areas have this situation. Everyone has options for what to listen to, there is NO NEED for government regulation of media if the people already have a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple strudel
As for it being fascist - well, we had the law in this country for 40 years during arguably our golden age. We removed the regulation and politics turned ugly and stupid. (That's not a definitive proof but it's how I see it.)
This is not a logical argument. This would be like someone saying that back in the 40s we had lower crime rates and segregation laws so we should re-institute those. You can't make that connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple strudel
I think a show like Rush Limbaugh does not serve the public interest. If he wants to go on cable TV or satellite radio, then fine. He can do that.
But how much of what is on the radio DOES serve the public interest? Do you also agree with limiting radio shows deemed offensive like Howard Stern? I don't, I put the onus on the individual to listen/not listen, and to monitor what their children listen to.
I understand the frustration with large corporations with an axe to grind being able to spread whatever message they wish, but to me so long as people have a choice to listen or not the government should not be able to block them from doing so. It creates a dangerous precedent for how the government can regulate the information we choose to get (something they already do too much of).
I think one thing that is missing is the context in which the law was created. Back then there were very limited options for what to listen to. In a circumstance in which rural areas may have only gotten 1 radio station I can see a need for ensuring fairness in that 1 station. (I also believe this was the intent of the Supreme Court's decision and I suspect you do too and are choosing to ignore it to suit your argument). Today however we do NOT even in the most rural areas have this situation. Everyone has options for what to listen to, there is NO NEED for government regulation of media if the people already have a choice.
This is not a logical argument. This would be like someone saying that back in the 40s we had lower crime rates and segregation laws so we should re-institute those. You can't make that connection.
But how much of what is on the radio DOES serve the public interest? Do you also agree with limiting radio shows deemed offensive like Howard Stern? I don't, I put the onus on the individual to listen/not listen, and to monitor what their children listen to.
I understand the frustration with large corporations with an axe to grind being able to spread whatever message they wish, but to me so long as people have a choice to listen or not the government should not be able to block them from doing so. It creates a dangerous precedent for how the government can regulate the information we choose to get (something they already do too much of).
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we talking about FM stations? I don't think the frequency spectrum has changed and nobody is talking about satellite radio. It's a matter of licensing public airwaves. The local stations broadcast Viacom or Clear Channel, but those local stations were not built by them.
Your store is not licensed from public property. Airwaves are. Is it appropriate to use property owned by the people to deliver political propaganda? I say no. The Supreme Court says that this speech can be regulated.
Also, political ideologies are probably not analogous to soft drinks or consumer products.
How are "airwaves" public property? What's to stop the government from taking over all the radio frequencies and feeding us nothing but authoritarian bull***** 24/7? Shouldn't the People decide what to listen to on the radio? You fail to justify why the government should decide what the People listen to. If 75% of radio listeners want ot listen to Rush, why shouldn't they be able to? My bet is that a fraction of the people listen to the radio that did in 1970. Suppose only 10% of Americans listen to the radio daily, 6% listen to talk radio and 3% listen to Rush. So what? Who is the government to come in and say, "No, no,no! We want to make sure that only 2% listen to Rush, 2% listen to Air America, and 2% listen to NPR (or whoever)!"
How are "airwaves" public property? What's to stop the government from taking over all the radio frequencies and feeding us nothing but authoritarian bull***** 24/7? Shouldn't the People decide what to listen to on the radio? You fail to justify why the government should decide what the People listen to. If 75% of radio listeners want ot listen to Rush, why shouldn't they be able to? My bet is that a fraction of the people listen to the radio that did in 1970. Suppose only 10% of Americans listen to the radio daily, 6% listen to talk radio and 3% listen to Rush. So what? Who is the government to come in and say, "No, no,no! We want to make sure that only 2% listen to Rush, 2% listen to Air America, and 2% listen to NPR (or whoever)!"
Government propaganda is illegal. The airwaves are publicly owned and licensed since it's a finite spectrum.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we talking about FM stations? I don't think the frequency spectrum has changed and nobody is talking about satellite radio. It's a matter of licensing public airwaves. The local stations broadcast Viacom or Clear Channel, but those local stations were not built by them.
No I wasn't clear, I brought up the Stern example because the FCC essentially forced him over to satellite, not because I was talking about limiting content on satellite radio.
As I was thinking about this issue I was trying to come up with other examples of political content in the public domain, and if these examples are similar to radio.
The one I thought of is what about political advertising on your car or on buses? The car is your property (just like say a radio station is private property), but your car is driven on publicly owned roads (just like your radio broadcast is transmitted over public airwaves). Does the analogy hold up? Seemed pretty good to me, and if so wouldn't that mean political or offensive statements on your car should be subject to some kind of fairness doctrine?
A similar one might be signage on your property that is visible from public areas (at the extreme maybe you own a building that is next to a public park and you cover one side with political propaganda).
Can anyone else think of other examples, or point out how its different from radio?
Seems to me that it is a difficult case to say that just because the airwaves are public that the private entities using them to broadcast need be subject to such strict regulation, especially when the case can no longer be made that people have no other option than to listen to the political programming.
Re: Crybaby Liberals
Linear Mode
