Jeff Poor's recent post (picked up by Drudge) reported on the potential return of the Fairness Doctrine under a President Obama--specifically for the purpose of the governing the internet.
He quoted FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell who said the following:
“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right. I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”
“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else. So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”
Lest you think McDowell is being alarmist, consider, for a moment, the Seattle Times's pushback efforts against the erosion of MSM control and the future institution of "Net Neutrality."
As part of the Times's regular Op-Ed page, they have an ongoing series of articles called "The Democracy Papers." The intro to this section reads:
The Democracy Papers is a series of articles, essays and editorial opinion examining threats to our freedoms of speech. Technology has created space for more voices, yet fewer and fewer are heard.
The American press and media are being decimated by consolidation. This transformation from many owners into five or six large corporations and the lessening of small outlets for radio, newspapers, magazines and music are chilling a once robust marketplace of ideas. What should Americans do? This series explores the arguments and the backlash.
The "threats to our freedoms of speech" to which the Seattle Times ominously refers is the same supposed corporate control and censorship to which McDowell alludes. According to the Seattle Times, this consolidation is "chilling" the "marketplace of ideas." Liberals sure do love to have their ideas "chilled," don't they?
Of course, all of this ignores the single greatest development in the history of news reporting and prompts me to ask: Hey Seattle Times, have you ever heard of the internet?
The real trend they should be following is the incredible democratization of the news and opinion-making that has wrested control of the news marketplace from the few, liberal powerbrokers.
The Times's cri de coeur is nothing more than a self-interested longing for better days when they and their cohorts controlled the media agenda. You know, back in the day when they could squash reporting of scandals like John Edwards's and print libelous accusations of scandal about John McCain with nary a dissenting opinion.
Those were the days, weren't they?
—Jacob S. Lybbert is an editorial associate at NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
All this fairness crap
August 13, 2008 - 18:30 ET by 10ksnookerwas fine and just dandy when the drive by media had amonopoly and talk radio did not exist. Times change. I can't wait to get my free half hour of the nighty news on CBS's stations ... LOL.
I will be glad when Voters Wake UP.
August 13, 2008 - 18:42 ET by ZachJonesIsHomeAll of this Fairness Doctrine stuff is about stuffing the MSM's pockets by shuting down the competition.
zachjonesishome.wordpress.com
Oh cry me a river....Those
August 13, 2008 - 18:58 ET by bigtimerOh cry me a river....Those were the days indeed!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
This is ridiculous. If not
August 13, 2008 - 19:08 ET by gopsteveThis is ridiculous. If not for the Internet, at least Bush and McCain would have been ruined by scurriless msm claims, Gore (or Kerry) would have been Prez, and John Edwards would be hoping his big convention speech would start early so he could make a quick stop at Reille's home.
I guess Obama realizes this too.
Why isn't the GOP talking about this? Why aren't they holding press conferences to say the Dems won't let them vote.
Stand up and fight before you are all voted out or have to resign due to another MSM generated scandal..........
Everything is fair as long
August 13, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Biff McCainEverything is fair as long as Clear Channel calls the shots.
I complained to my local hot dog shop about advertising on the
Limbaugh-McGreevey Show, they told me it was the only way to get an ad
on radio. CC owns four of the five locals.
Even their rock DJ was making Kerry flip flop jokes in 04. I'm sure CC put him up to it.
I know how to win wars!
Everything is fair as long
August 13, 2008 - 19:25 ET by NewsbusterbrownEverything is fair as long as Clear Channel calls the shots.
Unless they have a mind-control ray, how does Clear Channel make you or anybody else listen to them?
I complained to my local hot dog shop about advertising on the
Limbaugh-McGreevey Show, they told me it was the only way to get an ad on radio.
Your local hot dog shop advertises on Rush Limaugh's show? When did they start allowing local advertisements?
Even their rock DJ was making Kerry flip flop jokes in 04. I'm sure CC put him up to it.
What does that have to do with nobody listening to Air America, for example?
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Limbaugh Show
August 13, 2008 - 19:32 ET by Biff McCainAbout half the ads are local.
I know how to win wars!
So the Justice Bros. run
August 13, 2008 - 19:35 ET by bigtimerSo the Justice Bros. run your local hot dog stands Biffy?
Too funny you are.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
They make the second best
August 13, 2008 - 19:50 ET by Biff McCainThey make the second best dog in the world, right behind my homemade football tailgate specials.
All hot dog labels have "water added," my label would have Tanqueray
added. It acts as a cure and really kicks 'em up. I also use an all
natural hog casing.
Bam!
About half the ads are
August 13, 2008 - 19:36 ET by NewsbusterbrownAbout half the ads are local.
Not where I am. Does anybody else here get local ads during his show?
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Not where I am. Does
August 14, 2008 - 07:19 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsNot where I am. Does anybody else here get local ads during his show?
All day long here (Philly and suburbs) the ads are a mix of local and national businesses.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Local stations sell the airtime
August 14, 2008 - 20:16 ET by CobraMan"About half the ads are local."
And your point is, what? Local companies buy airtime for ads and national companies buy airtime for ads. That's just the way things work. Clear Channel itself doesn't pick and choose which ad is run on which station, that's up to each individual station to decide. If you want to complain about the ratio of local ads to national ads, complain to the station itself and not to it's parent company.
Some facts on the Limbaugh show
August 13, 2008 - 19:37 ET by nkviking75Until last year when Clear Channel started getting out of small markets like mine, I was a CC employee. I never heard word one about pushing a political point of view.
Also, Rush Limbaugh has always had what are known in the business as "local availabilities". Not even Rush is powerful enough to get radio stations to give up a solid 54 minutes an hour for three hours. Anyone who can pony up what the local station wants can advertise in those slots on those stations.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Biff, if I were a business owner, I'd much rather advertise...
August 13, 2008 - 21:04 ET by R D Helm...on Boortz, Limbaugh and Hannity's shows, as I would much rather get my ads into the ears and minds of successful, happy people, who can actually afford to buy what I am selling, as opposed to miserable, jobless, cyry-baby, hand-out awaiting losers.
But that's just me. :-)
-Dave.
Another homeless guy for McCain
August 13, 2008 - 21:20 ET by Biff McCainFunny you should say that, just yesterday I was at a traffic light with
Hannity on. I could hear an echo, the car next to me had him blasting
and wanted everyone to know. He was a long haired guy, not hippy type
but homeless looking. His car was a sputtering late 80's boat.
My hot dog shop wouldn't let him in the front door.
I know how to win wars!
You mean like a Howard Hughs type
August 13, 2008 - 21:25 ET by Dan The Man 2Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Biffy, I sell cars for a living. If I pre-judged people...
August 14, 2008 - 22:40 ET by R D Helm...as you have here, I would be living in a tent eating Ramen noodles three times a day.
I have seen people who appear as you describe above walk into my dealership and pay cash for brand new vehicles.
Albeit some of them may very well have been turned away from your beloved frankfurter consumatory, but every single one of them could have turned right around and bought the place outright.
If there is one thing I have learned in the car business, never, EVER pre-judge people based on their appearance, or the vehicle they drive up in.
BTW-The lowest MSRP of any vehicle in the showroom I spend about sixty hours in each week is right around $38,000.
Believe me, you just never know.
-Dave.
RD
August 14, 2008 - 22:42 ET by Cool ArrowI think Biff may fancy himself "the WeinerNazi" ala Seinfeld.
I ♣ my seal
Cool, actually, I think Biffy is a closet frankfurter fondler.
August 14, 2008 - 23:44 ET by R D Helm:-^) X 10.
-Dave.
That's hysterical Dave
August 14, 2008 - 23:52 ET by Dee BunkIt's that stork-like sex education he got. He doesn't realize that he's not connected to the hotdog ; )
Go listen to
August 14, 2008 - 16:27 ET by NorthCoasterAir America------Oh I guess their content didn't sell very well in the market place. Too much ranting and raving. I'ts kind of like the MSM or main cable channels Vs. Fox ----give everyone a fair shake and be obvious when you are editorializing and you beat the competition!
There are multiple options available just change the channel.
It is obvious to any
August 13, 2008 - 19:16 ET by MrSnugglesIt is obvious to any observer with half a brain cell that what the Seattle Times and other leftists really fear is diversity of opinion and NOT media consolidation. It is media consolidation that allowed them to control the agenda and the news cycle.
Fairness Doctrine
August 13, 2008 - 19:32 ET by ScrapironFairness doctrine and Net Neutrality are code words for communism. Why would the media, even the Lame Stream Media want that? It does away with their job and farms it out to government stooges. Not one of the current liberal media hypes would be allowed to work in or near the media business of a communist government. They 'might' be given a job on a hog farm since they have no other qualifications, but would most likely simply disappear never to be seen again. That's how communism really works.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Scrap,
August 13, 2008 - 20:18 ET by RESTLESS 1"They 'might' be given a job on a hog farm since they have no other
qualifications, but would most likely simply disappear never to be seen
again. That's how communism really works."
You know, you make communism sound not so bad, at least for a little while. ;>)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
This Is Deathbed Wheezing
August 13, 2008 - 19:47 ET by rammingspeedThe Fairness Doctrine is never going to be put in place. The MSM is dead, but they don't know it yet. It's fun to watch.
Don't bet your house on it.
August 13, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Kenny BunkportDon't bet your house on it. You'd be amazed how many people still get all of their news from AP and the networks.
The MSM is swinging for the fence to get Obama elected. Both houses of Congress and the President (with the abetting media) could conceivably pass Net Neutrality and re-enact the Fairness doctrine. With the media filter, most people won't even know the implications of the legislation until the bills are signed.
The Democrats know they are in hock to the MSM for their very existence. They'll pass this crap to pay back their debt.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Kenny B, love the new sig.
August 13, 2008 - 21:09 ET by R D HelmLOL-You're my kind of people. :-)
-Dave.
I guess we all know where I
August 13, 2008 - 21:26 ET by Kenny BunkportI guess we all know where I stand on the 2nd Amendment now. LOL
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
I figure we (conservatives
August 13, 2008 - 20:07 ET by mostlymoderateI figure we (conservatives and moderates) will be ok so long as the internet is never censored. We all know that the Internet is where all the action will be. Talk radio, television, print...those outlets have already been hijacked or WILL be hijacked by an un-American, liberal few.
Fairness Doctrine Redux
August 13, 2008 - 20:18 ET by geoff.galeMcDowell is one of the Republican appointees to the FCC. He's doing a good job for the conservatives in riling up the folks down on Main Street with this comment, but I think there are some mitigating factors at play in this whole debate.
First off, although it's an academic point, the debate over net neutrality has generally been about carriers treating all data packets alike and not discriminating against some data packets because they are associated with an application or service that doesn't directly profit the carrier. It has more to do with issues like Comcast throttling BitTorrent packets and carriers setting up tiers of service that force consumers to spend more for the same level of service. Although the issue of unfair political discussion has been mentioned, it has not figured to any great degree in the two bills about net neutrality that the Congress has entertained. For McDowell to make this statement, he's either intentionally obfuscating the issue, or he's dumb as a box of rocks.
Second, although I think modern liberals are more than sleazy enough to try to limit our abilitity to share ideas, I would think that they would want to keep the focus of the Fairness Doctrine strictly on talk radio and not expand the discussion to include other media, like the net. The modern liberals have a well oiled machine for a web/blog presence. Look at Obama's campaign - they use the net and their blogs extensively. Look at MoveOn.org, DailyKos, HuffPo and all the lesser known liberal blogs. They're well funded and well-known. If they were force equal time/space on the net through a Fairness Doctrine, they'd lose all of that investment. Personally, I think the Democrats are dumb, but not that dumb. They have a superior strength among the old print media, the network news, and the cable news outlets. They're at least as strong as the conservatives on the web. Talk radio is their one sore spot where they are routinely outdone by conservatives. They're not going to risk all their other media advantages just to win in talk radio. As I said, I can't imagine anything other than sheer stupidity that would cause them to expand their FD discussions to include other media beyond talk radio because they'd be the big losers.
By the way, the obvious Republican strategy to silence the discussion on FD is to tack on a few amendments that extend the FD that liberals have in mind for talk radio to network, local and cable TV. Sure, we'll trade talk radio for access to Countdown and Hardball and all the network news. Tit for tat. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And all that. If they have enough numbers to make a go of it, it's a strategy virtually guaranteed to cut the discussion off tout de suite.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Sorry geoff, but I think
August 13, 2008 - 21:14 ET by Kenny BunkportSorry geoff, but I think you are naive on how laws can be perverted to pursue an agenda. Who would have thought that RICO laws would be used to shut down abortion protesters? Who would have thought that creating public schooling would lead to the unassailable monolith we have now? Most people are unaware how hate speech laws are being used to stifle free speech on college campuses and elsewhere. The list goes on.
All laws need to be examined thoroughly before they come to vote to be sure that some group and their attack lawyers can't misuse them. Hoping you get bad legislation corrected through countersuits is not effective. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences. All possible outcomes must be examined not just the desired ones.
Maybe Net Neutrality isn't mostly about censoring the Internet, but the potential is there. As long as there is potential, you should expect it to happen. All it takes is an aggressive official or team of lawyers. That's why we need to throw up red flags now so that wording of the bill can be changed to prevent abuse.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
kenny, I think you missed my point in that comment
August 13, 2008 - 22:00 ET by geoff.galeMy point was that by making the reference to net neutrality, Mr. McDowell was using the phrase net neutrality as a red herring with the intent of getting the troops riled up. The term is so poorly understood that it's more than likely to cause confusion.
To date, there have been two pieces of legislation offered in Congress regarding net neutrality:
for broadband providers to discriminate against any web traffic, refuse to connect to other providers, or block or impair specific (legal) content. It would also have prohibited the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority. The legislation was approved
20-13 by the House Judiciary committee on May 25, 2006, but was never taken up on the House floor and therefore failed to become law.
Although I completely understand the law of unintended consequences, the facts are that the legislation that the Congress has looked at to date just doesn't have anything to do with protected free speech in blogs on the net, which is what leads me to the conclusion that Mr. McDowell was engaging in a little of the old political obfuscation - you know, pre-emptively get conservatives all heated up over something that sounds much, much worse than it is. As I pointed out, the Democrats and liberals would have just as much to lose as conservatives if websites, blogs and videocasts were suddenly was forced to provide "equal time/equal space".
Can you imagine George Soros voluntarily paying to open MoveOn.org for people like Rush to post equal space as the leftie lunacy there? Me either.
If you can point out to me how a law could be written that only covers conservative speech in blogs but leaves liberal speech in blogs alone, then I'll start to get worried, but until then I'll focus on where the real battle is - talk radio.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
geoff, I'll concede to many
August 13, 2008 - 22:32 ET by Kenny Bunkportgeoff, I'll concede to many of your points on Net Neutrality (God knows Mediacom carries the monopoly on cable access here, and I hate their guts). And perhaps Mr. McDowell was stirring the pot.
But I'll make one more observation about paying close attention to the bills. When the Fairness Doctrine was originally passed it was intended to make the airways politically neutral. However, liberals in the media learned to get around that by selecting which stories to run, how long to run them, and which stories to ignore. They also became adept at using loaded wording and selective labeling.
Conservatives soon became aware of the unfairness of the Fairness Act. Network news could air 22 minutes of biased reporting and give William Buckley 2 minutes for the "balanced" view. Despite how many(?) years of fighting this bad legislation, it wasn't until the Fairness Doctrine was repealed that conservative voices were heard on the airways.
How do you attack conservatives without attacking liberals? One, you call conservative speech "hate speech". Two, you present the liberal view as moderate (so you don't need a counter opinion) and the conservative as extreme. Three, you lump conservative opinion in with moral or religious opinion. As we all know, the government cannot sponsor religious views.
All of these (and more) have been done by liberals with power to stifle conservative thought. Think about what's happening right now in higher education with speech codes.
I'll agree that the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water in re to Net Neutrality. But if we can see a potential for abuse, then someone else is seeing an opportunity.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
A Summary of Net Neutrality = Selfish Bandwidth Hogs
August 13, 2008 - 23:48 ET by PopularTechP2P Bandwidth hogs are mad that Comcast reset some of their Bittorrent connections to allow other paying customers a usable internet experience. They are now claiming all sorts of nonsensical free-speech infringements and are actively pushing for legislation to legally allow them to saturate private networks with P2P (file-sharing) traffic and make it unusable to other paying customers.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
P2P and bandwith
August 14, 2008 - 05:33 ET by Darune AlbanePt .. that is a lie the company's oversell thier bandwith and when you use the bandwith they advertised you have you get in trouble with them and you get called a hog
Confusing Upstream with Downstream Bandwidth
August 14, 2008 - 08:00 ET by PopularTechCheck out Cable's upstream bandwidth vs. downstream they are two very different things. Cable is NOT DSL and the bandwidth cap is different based on whether you are sending (upstream) or receiving (downstream). P2P is one of the few applications besides server hosting that saturates the upstream bandwidth. You need to read your agreement and I mean the fine print. It is YOUR FAULT for not reading carefully.
P2P users are bandwidth hogs and the majority of that traffic is illegal downloads via Bittorent. Please don't be naive.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
BitTorent Pirates need a Bottle
August 14, 2008 - 08:06 ET by PopularTechI have little pity on BitTorent Pirates because they are not able to max out and eat into my bandwidth (cable bandwidth is shared in local nodes) so they can illegally get movies. They can cry all they want - all I will offer is a bottle.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Bandwidth and Net Nutrality
August 15, 2008 - 01:10 ET by CobraManA lot of people don’t understand what the “net neutrality” argument is about. I’m going to try to help people understand just what is going on here. Forgive me for this long post, but there’s no other way of explaining it.
Part of the problem is that people are confusing bandwidth and baud rates. That 5-megabit per second rate Comcast advertises, for example, NOT bandwidth. That refers to baud rate, the number of bits per second of data that a line can possibly carry. Bandwidth refers to the maximum amount of TOTAL INFORMATION a system can carry, also known as data density. It's a combination of the number of simultaneous connections a line, router or server (or groups of the same) can handle times the baud rate for each connection.
Most “high speed” home Internet file transfers today occur at around 512k baud max, depending on server overhead, remote and local drive speeds, and various other factors. This means that If you try to download a single file using a single connection, you usually won't get a higher data transfer rate than 512k, if you're even that lucky. P2P (and other "accelerator") programs get around this inherent baud limitation by opening multiple, simultaneous connections to the SAME file on the SAME server or pc. This is NOT an actual increase of speed but is, instead, an increase in data density, aka bandwidth. It’s a way of gaming the system.
Let’s say you’re downloading a file from another pc on the Internet. Using a SINGLE connection, Comcast’s server only needs to keep track of one dataflow (data transfer) operation from that pc to yours. If you use a P2P program, that program will open 10 (or more) simultaneous connections to the same file on that same pc. Comcast’s server now has to keep track of 10 simultaneous dataflow operations from that pc to yours. It’s like having 10 cable lines running simultaneously.
Now, let’s compare this to a web browser or any other type file-sharing program. Web browsers use the HTTP file transfer protocol. This is a single, linear connection method. When you “open” a web page, you’re actually requesting a file from a remote server or pc, just like downloading a music file. The browser receives the data in that file through the process of data packet transfer. The server receives a data packet from the remote server and transfers it to your pc. This happens again and again until the complete file is received. Then the connection is closed and your browse starts to build the page that you see (that file may include links to other, separate files like ads, but that’s just another request for a file transfer on another server. The principal is the same, as is the methods of data transfer) Since most browsers don‘t use the multiple connection trick to receive web page data, you’re pc will use only ONE connection at a time to get all the requested data the page needs to “load.“ If that page contains a request for a separate file, like an ad, your browser will request a connection to the ad server in order to receive the data file for that ad. Once that file has been received, your browser will close that connection. This can happen several times if the page contains requests for multiple remote files. (Now you know why some pages seem to load slower than others do, it’s all those requests for those damn ads on separate servers!)
What this really means is that, when you load a web page, Comcast’s server is only keeping track of one connection at a time, even though that page may contain file requests to several, separate remote servers. The server overhead remains the same no matter how many SINGLE connects are required to load that page.
The same is true if you’re receiving any other type of file through the HTTP (or FTP) methods, only ONE connection to a remote pc or server is open at a time.
Now, let’s compare the two different situations, single, linear connections and multiple simultaneous connections. The bandwidth requirements for a single connection is low, even at high baud rates. The bandwidth requirements for multiple simultaneous connections increase twice for each simultaneous connection. 10 simultaneous connections require about 20 times the necessary bandwidth in order to prevent data packet collisions over the same line! It equivalent to using 10 lines and 10 data switches to sort out each data packet and send them in the proper order to the proper line. And all this for just ONE data file! Now, mutiply this by the number of simultaneous FILE requests being sent by ONE P2P user (be real, how many of you download only one file at a time!) and mutiply that AGAIN for each P2P user on a provider's system. That bandwidth overhead is enormous! And P2P users wonder why people like me who don’t use P2P are upset that the bandwidth hogs are burning up most of the available bandwidth!
WE SHOULD BE UPSET! After all, they're getting 20 times or more the service than I am for the same price! Comcast should be upset too; they're forcing them to slow EVERYONE’S data transfer rates down just to let the P2P users cheat! After all, there’s only so much total bandwidth available to anyone at any given time. And the P2P users (along with all other programs that game the system by using multiple, simultaneous connections) are burning up 20 times or more than any other user at any given time. Plus, they're forcing them to continually add more and more servers, routers, and associated equipment in order to keep up with the massive increased bandwidth demand thier cheating requires. That means Comsact is forced to buy and add 20 times or more as much equipment to satisfy the bandwidth hogs than would otherwise be needed.
So you tell me, is forcing Comcast to treat high bandwidth users the same as low bandwidth users actually NEUTRAL? I would say, HELL NO!
Some Final Thoughts
August 14, 2008 - 01:05 ET by geoff.galeKenny, the Fairness Doctrine was never enforced as a piece of legislation. Since 1948 or 49, the FD was an FCC rule, not a law. Congress passed an FD bill in 1987, but Reagan vetoed it. That bill only happened because in a 1984 Supreme Court decision (FCC v League of Women Voters of California), the court found that the FD "chilled speech" and after that decision, the FCC dismantled their long-standing FD rule a bit at a time over 18-24 months.
For the first 15-18 years of the rule, it was largely implemented through a self-policing philosophy and the FCC did most of their audit on the policy during the license renewal process for the station licensee. Sometime during the social upheaval of the 60's, the FCC changed the cards around a bit and required license holders to provide air time to "responsible parties with opposing points of view". But they left it to the station licensee as to who to chose as the opposing point of view, and they didn't require equal time. I don't know how old you are, but these were the days of those little opposing POV segments that were usually aired in the last 10 minutes of the news show, and were presented by lay people who often had the tele-presence of a crash test dummy.
The concept of equal time is a new one, and as far as I can tell it's evolved from the demands for rebuttals to State of the Union and other Presidential speeches.
The point is that implementing the FD as a law is a wholecloth invention on the part of the Democrats. For all of it's history it never amounted to more than an FCC rule.
While this is true, it's important to note that this happened largely after the FD was discontinued in 1984-85. That's when the modern liberals really ramped up their efforts to control the media. It wasn't the FD that helped it happen, it was the degree to which the modern liberal element of the Democratic Party took control of the party.
Kenny, don't misread my intentions - I'm very opposed to any implementation of anything like a Fairness Doctrine. But I'm also very sure that the fight is not going to be over the net, nor will it be over network and cable TV outlets. The liberal side already has firm control over those and if they were to open them up to equal time, it would be a loss for them. They like things how they are now. Their sole interest in the FD is to squelch talk radio.
Of course neither of us can predict the future, but I'd be very surprised for even a more liberal Supreme Court go along with calling just conservative speech "hate speech". You and I both know that we can cruise over to MoveOn or the Daily Kos, or any other liberal website/blog tonight and find reams of foul language, abusive threats, and true hate aimed at conservatives. All it takes is for conservatives to start making the same kind of complaints about being treated that way. for them to work the system a bit and the Court is over a barrel - how can the same speech be hate for one and not for the other?
I agree that the libs have dominated the schools, and I also note that there has been a dramatic rise in the number of kids attending private schools, religious schools and being homeschooled. Let's get vouchers passed and be done with it.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
geoff, thanks for the info.
August 14, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Kenny Bunkportgeoff, thanks for the info. You've really done your homework. I'm still relying on my [often faulty] memory.
Well I'm not young, but I'm not a fossil yet. You are correct that the media basically quit any attempts at balance after the FD was dropped. I was fairly young, but I still remember that there was already a decided liberal slant prior to that. Back then I was mostly liberal myself. It was about 1980 that my older brother pointed out the slant that news had. It was then I had my epiphany about the press.
I couldn't agree more about vouchers for schooling. I guess I'm just more fearful of potential misuse and believe than you really need to be wary of any new legislation. Much of what Hitler and the Nazis did in the 1930's seemed sensible and was actually legal. But as we know, it laid the groundwork for the atrocities to come.
It's been nice conversing with you.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Wrapping Up
August 14, 2008 - 16:25 ET by geoff.galeSame on this end, Kenny.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
What McDowell meant - A Stealth Fairness Doctrine
August 13, 2008 - 23:35 ET by PopularTechI had to watch the video to understand it. He was saying that to get the Fairness Doctrine passed it may be rewritten as a part of a new "net neutrality" law since some conservatives are willing (idiotically) to go along with net neutrality legislation based on not understanding the debate and thinking it is also about censorship. They may then vote for a "net neutrality bill and unknowingly vote in the fairness doctrine.
Against a National Broadband Policy (Ludwig von Mises Institute)
"Net Neutrality" Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace? (Cato Institute)
Father of internet warns against Net Neutrality (The Register, UK)
Net neutrality and politics don’t mix (George Ou, ZDNet)
- Net neutrality extremism versus common sense economics (George Ou, ZDNet)
- Net neutrality extremists should stop playing engineers (George Ou, ZDNet)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Thanks For Your Insights, PT
August 14, 2008 - 01:25 ET by geoff.galeYeah, I hate that term 'net neutrality'. I understand it from a technical perspective, but it's deceptive and confusing for most people. I certainly don't disagree with you that the libs will attempt to sneak a fairness doctrine in under the radar - that's their style. But I also think that they're very focused on talk radio. Why would they want to ruin the good thing they've got going with TV and cable news? The net is already pretty equal and since it's an active medium for the most part, that is to say that you have to actively seek out content, it shares more in common with print media which never have had any requirement for fairness imposed on them. I can virtually guarantee you that if the government imposed a requirement for equal time/space on politically oriented websites/blog, that a lot of that political speech would find it's way onto other non-political sites and blogs and into email. Email lists would once again be king of the internet - that's a laugh. That and the number of people using software tools to spoof IP addys and otherwise blur identities would skyrocket.
Since talk radio has the most skin in this game, I have to believe that when the time comes that the libs move on this, they'll all make ample use of the airwaves to get word out to conservatives and moderates to flood the Congress and White House with mail, emails and phone calls, and encourage them not let it pass in under the radar.
I remember reading the bill that Maurice Hinchey introduced a year ago - he combined the FD with a bill to control the number of radio and TV stations any company or individual could own.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine
August 14, 2008 - 02:29 ET by PopularTechThe term "net neutrality" was obviously devised for propaganda reasons and I agree it is deceptive and confusing for most people but that was what it was designed for. I also agree that this whole debate here at Newsbusters is going to further confuse the subject since people will come away thinking that "net neutrality" is the fairness doctrine of the Internet or possibly a new fairness doctrine - even if that is not what the FCC chair said.
Without question the fairness doctrine is designed to go after conservative talk radio and even if applied would be impossible to enforce online.
'Net Neutrality' though is all about file sharing pirates using Bittorent who are mad that Comcast and Cox throttled them back so they could free up bandwidth for other paying users on their private network - which then attaches to the Internet at large. They effectively want to have rights over Comcast and Cox's private network outside of what their contract they agreed to allows for. In a free market (like we have here) they are free to leave Comcast and Cox and use competing networks from say Verizon or AT&T. None of this has anything to do with the fairness doctrine. But the FCC Chair's legitimate warning of a stealth fairness doctrine hidden in a net neutrality bill may have done more harm than good. I have already heard some of this on talk radio and did not realize how distorted the argument has become. Without understanding the subject it is easy for it to be misunderstood.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I Concur
August 14, 2008 - 16:29 ET by geoff.galeWell put and succinctly summarised. Good job.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
double post
August 13, 2008 - 21:18 ET by Kenny BunkportDouble post.
Seattle Times
August 13, 2008 - 20:35 ET by magicalangelicusIn the special "democracy" seciton, I found this article. Read what these folks think the media should do to save itself:
http://seattletimes....
To give you a clue on how insular these people are, look at the reasons they give for the public's loss of faith in the MSM:
- the failure to challenge Bush enough in the run-up to the war
- no enough cultural and eocnomic diversity in the newsroom
- not enough focus on critisizing religion
It's a remarkable read and sort of confirms my sneaking suspicion that the mSM is far too insualr to save itself.
"not enough focus on
August 13, 2008 - 21:57 ET by Biff McCain"not enough focus on criticizing religion"
I couldn't agree with them more. How we are letting these god nuts
dictate their crazy beliefs in our schools I'll never tell. They want
teaching evaluation banned and replaced with their bogus god created
everything in seven day jingo, what a bunch bologna. Then they want
time in school to pray, the crazies think if other kids see them pray
they'll want to be just as crazy. It would make sense to give them time
to pick their nose.
I would ban prayer at home because it leads to them demanding everyone do it.
I know how to win wars!
Hey Biff
August 14, 2008 - 01:19 ET by Cool ArrowI think your "uncles" have gone home now. It's safe for you to go upstairs to bed.
I ♣ my seal
The Huggy Cuddly Teddy Bear Internet Assistance Act
August 14, 2008 - 02:57 ET by gordonThe act will be administered by a committee made up of three members:
The mantle of committee chair will be conferred upon the man who's tireless efforts on behalf of the Internet has granted him the special vision to help it's transition to a kinder, gentler, more civil, more accountable, and fairer medium. Ladies and Gentle People of the People's Democratic Republic of America, give a big hand to the founding chair of the committee, Former Vice President Al Gore!!!
Right after the ceremonies, Al pushes a button, and NewsBusters is erased from existance. And all will be well again.
It was a typo.. not net
August 14, 2008 - 14:20 ET by GilIt was a typo.. not net Neutrality..
NET NEUTER- ALITY..
as in:
Veterinary Science. to spay or castrate (a dog, cat, etc.).
They want to remove any balls anyone may have.
Gil.