Fairness Doctrine

[GRAYWOLF]

regardless of todays naysayers. They just dont want the "other side" heard for fear of being proven wrong.

Someone opposed to the government approving (or not) everything that is broadcast, as you desire, doesn't have anything to do with "They just dont want the "other side" heard for fear of being proven wrong". That is a blatant lie. Some may believe that way, but some actually believe in the freedom in the Constitution this republic was founded on.

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

NOWHERE did the fairness doctrine deny free speech..period. It provided a dialogue Graywolf. I could careless what a conservative and a liberal have to say, as long as I am given the opportunity to hear both sides of their argument, for which a broadcast license "supposedly" says I should have in serving the community. NOT JUST A CONSERVATIVE COMMUNITY, OR A LIBERAL COMMUNITY..A COMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. Now you called my arguement a lie,well its funny how some TV religous commentators, and a few lesser know syndicated conservative commentators recently have said that the proponents of the fairness doctrine would shut down the conservative voice( a lie) and "WE" shouldnt allow liberals to broadcast their. Who were they? Pat Robertson's son, Larry Bates.Lars Larson, and that Jerry guy who used to be ob "Babylon 5" (appropriate). Sorry Graywolf, conservatives dont want an equal opposing viewpoint on the air,that may point out how their opinion could actually be wrong. As i pointed out this topic will always be argued no matter what..with no end in site. The bottom line the airwaves belong to the tax payer, the stations are licensed to serve its community with no religous or political preference, the people should be fully, not partially served , in hearing opposing view points ,equally and fairly..no censorship is advocated.

[Paul Boomer]

Golf clap, KPLEXCOMPLEX.  Very nicely stated.

Although, I'm thinking that this "Fairness Doctrine" argument is a bit of a canard put on by the few companies that own all the right-wing talk stations.  I think they may be trying to keep attention off the potential reversal of deregulation that granted them their monopolies.

And to whomever likened the the Fairness Doctrine with the Soviet state, just remember that the fairness doctrine was in place for the vast majority of the cold war, when they were our greatest enemy.  It served us well then.  Why are you afraid of an opposing viewpoint? 

[adguy]

Boomer,

Golf clap, KPLEXCOMPLEX.  Very nicely stated.

Although, I'm thinking that this "Fairness Doctrine" argument is a bit of a canard put on by the few companies that own all the right-wing talk stations.  I think they may be trying to keep attention off the potential reversal of deregulation that granted them their monopolies.

And to whomever likened the the Fairness Doctrine with the Soviet state, just remember that the fairness doctrine was in place for the vast majority of the cold war, when they were our greatest enemy.  It served us well then.  Why are you afraid of an opposing viewpoint? 

Boomer, I do agree with the fact that The Fairness Doctrine was in place to avoid the unfair swaying of opinion operated by an entity entrusted with the public interest.  Where that was true, probably through the 80's, today's information technology nullifies that arguement.  Radio, AS A BUSINESS, has to compete against the Internet, Sat Radio, and a TV universe of 500+ channels, many of which are laced with right or left wing slants.  I stand by my statement today that the Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than Soviet style censorship.  As I have posted throughout this thread, today's radio environment MUST survive on its ability to reach a large enough audience to support advertising.  Whether it's conservative or liberal is irrelevant.  It has to be credible enough to deliver an audience.  The POLITICIANS that want the fairness doctrine are doing nothing except attempting to censor the stations that prudently programmed successful programs that have delivered large audiences on the basis of thier abilities to entertain through their conservative slants.  You have to admit that their motive for bringing it back has nothing to do with forcing fair & opposing viewpoint.  It's all about vengeance because their side has failed to produce an entertaining personality that can deliver a quality audience.  Alan Combs might be the first.  His show is good and is likely to survive and thrive in the future.  Air America, as I have stated, failed in its attempt to be entertaining.  Today's radio is all about business, not so much what is in the public interest anymore, although I do agree, as previously stated, that deregulation killed radio as we once knew it.  Allow more ownership of the stations.  You'll get fairness through that kind of legislation.  Re-regulate ownership rules and DON'T allow for grandfather clauses.

[GRAYWOLF]

NOWHERE did the fairness doctrine deny free speech..period.

NOWHERE did I mention free speech!

It provided a dialogue Graywolf.

No it provided government interference.

I could careless what a conservative and a liberal have to say

Maybe you do care, but I couldn't care less what they have to say because they are all saying the same thing.

as long as I am given the opportunity to hear both sides of their argument,

You are only going to hear one side fo the argument if you are only hearing from them, anyway.

Now you called my arguement a lie,

To imply that anyone opposed to government interference is afraid of being proven wrong, is a lie. As I said, there are some that probably feel that way, but there are others, like me, that oppose it for legit reasons.

well its funny how some TV religous commentators, and a few lesser know syndicated conservative commentators recently have said that the proponents of the fairness doctrine would shut down the conservative voice( a lie) and "WE" shouldnt allow liberals to broadcast their. Who were they? Pat Robertson's son, Larry Bates.Lars Larson, and that Jerry guy who used to be ob "Babylon 5" (appropriate).

A couple of flapping jaws doesn't mean everyone!

Sorry Graywolf, conservatives dont want an equal opposing viewpoint on the air,that may point out how their opinion could actually be wrong.

There you go lying about some people again.

The bottom line the airwaves belong to the tax payer,

That is the socialist lie...

the stations are licensed to serve its community with no religous or political preference, the people should be fully, not partially served , in hearing opposing view points ,equally and fairly..no censorship is advocated.

They have that choice, if they know where to find opposing viewpoints. They will not find it listening to R & D flapping jaws...as they are all arguing for the same thing.

[Robert Bass]

The bottom line the airwaves belong to the tax payer,

That is the socialist lie...

No it is not...  The public owns the airwaves, plain and simple.

R

[adguy]

That is the socialist lie...
[/quote]

No it is not...  The public owns the airwaves, plain and simple.

R
[/quote]

Then what does the $20 million someone pays for a station mean in today's world?

[GRAYWOLF]

The bottom line the airwaves belong to the tax payer,

That is the socialist lie...

No it is not...  The public owns the airwaves, plain and simple.

R

Yes it is, plain and simple. The "public" owns nothing. everything is either owned by individuals or the government. The government steals private property and then tells us it is for "public good".

[Robert Bass]

Then what does the $20 million someone pays for a station mean in today's world?

It means certain aspects of terrestrial radio are out of control.  But this does not change the fact that the public still owns the airwaves.  Terrestrial stations are conducting bank operations on public property.  Please explain how the public benefits by this. 

It's not much different from a business going to a public park to run a bank, and making a huge profit off of the service, without reimbursing the taxpayers who own the park.  I believe if it were not for all the competition technology that exists today, there would be an outcry from the public about this mess.  Sadly though it looks like they don't seem to care, and that is a shame.

R

[Robert Bass]

The bottom line the airwaves belong to the tax payer,

That is the socialist lie...

No it is not...  The public owns the airwaves, plain and simple.

R

Yes it is, plain and simple. The "public" owns nothing. everything is either owned by individuals or the government. The government steals private property and then tells us it is for "public good".

See my previous response to adguy.

R