Slashdot Mirror
Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet
selil writes "A story popped up on the ChicagoBoyz Blog. It says 'Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is scheming to impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums — nothing.'"
"We know what's best for you"
Somewhere I heard that Bush and his cronnies were the ones making the flow of information more regulated and examined.
Does politics bring in the idiots from the streets, or does politics create idiots from sane stock? Discuss!
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Your epidermis is showing.
Here's a direct link to the letter in question.
the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting
[Citation needed]
Tweet, tweet.
I'm a dedicated political centrist. This sounds so fanciful that it smells of bull-shit spin and politicking to me.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
So, Submitter says that the right-wing Chicagoboyz blog says that Congressman Culberson says that Congrassman Brady says that Congressman Capuano says that Majority Leader Pelosi says she wants to stifle free spech?
EVERYBODY PANIC!
Now that the largest group on my.barackobama.com is protesting his FISA flip flopping...
That means McCain won't be able to post anything, even though he's a Presidential candidate. Though, McCain never had any hold on the Internet anyway.
...soon they will burn men."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
if I couldn't know what Harry Reid is listening to at the touch of a button.....
Monstar L
Given that the ACLU apparently supports internal censorship, I don't see why Democrats wouldn't also.
So according to this story Pelosi wants to impose the fairness doctrine on all political communiques by Congressmen. They would no longer have the ability to maintain even their own websites or speak to their constituents through any of the media without ensuring identical coverage would be granted to the opposition. I wonder how the Founders would have reacted to such proposed restrictions on their conduct.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
So this is entirely confusing. Isn't the democratic party supposed to be opposed to this sort of thing? Champ is pretty much right on
This is a regulation of HOUSE MEMBERS usage of the Internet - not the general public. Look at the linked letter: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF
The AS ASS above thinks that the Dems are manipulating the general public's right to free political speech, he is dead wrong.
The limits are to be placed upon Members of Congress and their staff and merely require that the material is vetted (I approved this ....) and that limitation of the staff's right to engage in political speech is included, too (it already is restricted - See, the Hatch Act, http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm ). RTFA.
From the PDF of the letter in question:
"Please note that nothing in these recommendations should b e construed as a recommendation to change the current House rules and regulations governing the content of official communications."
This is an attempt to deal with technical issues and update existing House rules to keep up with technology. There's a lot of FUD in the article summary and in TFA.
Here is the actual letter they reference: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how they can draw those conclusions from the source they reference. And I don't see anything about Pelosi. The letter seems to say that people can post stuff on outside servers, provided there is a way of verifying it really came from who it says its from. Whoah! Scandal!
Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories? This is stupid.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I've read the PDF about the *suggested* changes.
Currently there are rules governing the posting of *official* House of Reps material which includes the requirement that such posts are done in the house.gov domain.
The suggested change allows that material to be hosted on external servers subject to the *existing rules*.
It says *nothing* about prohibiting posting of opinions by house members on any web site. Nothing.
I read it three times, and it seems pretty standard. Basically, it's mostly about links to non-official websites and standards those outside sites must meet. It's no different than the rules that most corporations place on user-maintainable CMS systems.
Note: it never discusses approval of any particular piece of content (except to the extent that official postings already have to meet certain standards), just having pre-approved sites.
I guess having members of congress, or other elected officials, available for comments and statements online would make communication too efficient.
Seriously though; good or bad, gagging the political leaders of a country is down right anti-democratic. Internet is the way to engage in debate and arguing over different viewpoints (and having massive flamewars) in this day and age.
The Long Now Foundation
Here is the letter linked as "evidence" of this "censorship" policy:
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF.
Seems to me that it's referring to "official" House media... that is, representative of The House. Makes sense that if something's supposed to represent the body it ought to be approved by the majority, Democratic, Republican, or whoever.
Any other sources that indicate that congress is being gagged in their personal speech?
More Twoson than Cupertino
.....and the hoooooome of the slashdot karma whore.
No sig today...
The original fairness doctrine stated that due to the limited resource of OTA broadcasts, any controversial issue that would be brought up on the radio had to be balanced by another fair opinion.
You can say whatever the hell you wanted, but, if you were using public airwaves for it, you couldn't sit there and lie for like, 3 hours straight. Now that Reagan did away with that, Rush Limbuagh and his ilk filled that void and now are allowed to spew crap unabated.
I'm sure there's something more than the TFA's letting on. that just seems to sensationalist to be right.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They just have very specialized knowledge. The knowledge of how to get themselves elected, keep getting re-elected and moving up the chain of authority.
All of that schmoozing and such does not leave much time for learning anything else.
So they rely upon "advisors" for their "information". And said "information" has to be communicated to them in the least technical terms. Which results in statements about "tubes" and "trucks".
But to be fair to them, my CFO asked a little while ago if the power problems we had were a result of her sending an email to Iceland. After all, it must take a lot more power to push the message that far than to push it across the street.
Superficially, the Fairness Doctrine looked like it was a violation of the First Amendment, but it really wasn't. Broadcast licenses are simply a contract between the People and those who wish to broadcast. If you choose not to follow the rules imposed by the FCC, that contract can and should be revoked. It's the same as any other contract. The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, not a platform.
Basically it's saying that if you have official content you want to post (e.g. big videos) that you can't post on house.gov, you currently can't do it. Since some content is hard to post, Pelosi is suggesting new rules that allow it to be possible, within guidelines.
It's actually more permissive than our Internet posting policies here at work. Right now, you have to work through us (the web services team), as opposted to setting up your own URL and posting whatever you want outside of the official content.
From what I've ready on this plan, media companies will have to dedicate 'some time' not 'equal time' to the opposing views. Media currently is enjoying a market where they only broadcast what brings in listeners. Currently most of the listeners are coming from conservative radio talk. Pelosi et al don't like that they are getting more than their share, so they want to push 'fairness.' Well if Big media doesn't think being fair, by putting on the opposing view, is going to bring in listeners (read money) there's NO WAY they're going to allow it. If someone with an opposing view had something that the masses wanted to hear, they would have put it on already.
When this was originally done, media was not made of huge mega-corps. They couldn't fight it. Now we have clear chanel, newcorp, etc. With a lot more fighting power.
Regardless of it's likelyhood to pass or not, I'm against it.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
if you were using public airwaves for it, you couldn't sit there and lie for like, 3 hours straight.
You still can if you're the President and you're giving the State of the Union address. If the President ever actually told the truth during one of those addresses, his speech would consist of, "The United States is in deep shit, and it's our fault."
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Modding the truth as troll won't make it any less true, assholes. Read the letter.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Any material created by a Representative in their official role of Representative is the property of the United States of America, and the Capuano letter (the 'source' for this article) states that they want to EXPAND the sites onto which this USA-owned material may be posted. Currently, Representatives may only post this material to pages under House.gov, but they want to allow 'outside channels' to enable functions that House.gov can't serve effectively, such as streaming video. This is no where close to the "barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership" meme that the submitter (selil) introduced. In fact, the entire activity here appears (again, from the Capuano letter) to be RELAXING the rules on where content may be posted. Original article: -1, Troll.
Recently Slashdot has posted a few articles from blogs as if they were somehow authoritative. I know that Slashdot "editorship" is a frequent source of ridicule, but this is poor form that just isn't necessary. A blog should never be a "source" -- do just a few minutes of research, find the actual sources, and post an article about that... if it actually crosses any kind of threshold.
the elephants are trying to get rid of the 4th Amendment, of course the jackasses are trying to get rid of the 1st.
/yes, I read TFA and know it's not actually the issue, this is humor, get over it.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
A day at congress:
List of things to discuss and deal with (in order of "importance"):
Blogging
Walls around United states
(a million other things ranging for marriage to impeaching someone that is going to be gone in a couple months)...
Home foreclosure problems
Afghanistan
Iraq
Economic problems in the US
World food crisis
Its not even that something like this would bother me, its more of do they deem the other issues not important, or have they solved them already? oh no of course not, why would we do something important?
So, the current rules say that everything must be under the domain "house.gov".
But the video tools available (how so?) are not what they want. This is flaky.
And the bandwidth can be a problem. I understand that.
So, the simple solution is to allow each Congress Critter to set up his/her own sub-domain.house.gov wherever s/he wants to. With whatever bandwidth s/he wants to purchase. Particularly if it is from a local provider.
Nancy Pelosi is a VERY weak woman, it seems to me.
She's the Democratic leader Republicans would choose.
All your freedom is belong to us....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Who decides then what's fair?
The government? Or maybe the market?
Resources are different from what they were decades (almost a century) ago.
Who is allowed to file a complaint about what's fair?
What topics are covered? Can any religious belief out there (buddhists, etc) claim fairness doctrine against christian TV & radio? (yes they could).
If the "fairness doctrine" is re adopted, where will it stop?
Or just let the market decide!
In fact, the Fairness Doctrine was instituted by conservatives in like 1949 to censor liberals and Communits.
It wasn't until the neocons started appearing ion the scene during the Reagan Administration that conservatives were suddenly "against" the Fairness Doctrine.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There that settles that. I can understand the restrictions on public airwaves but blogs and webpages? Seriously, when an elected representative endorses or sponsors a law that is deemed unconstitutional that representative should face some sort of sanctions. Depending on how bad the law is this should range from fines, upto and including barred from public office and prison terms. This would make them more accountable for the BS they are tossing around and make them read and think about the damn bills they are rubber stamping.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Payback's a b.t.h ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...they call 'em "liberals." The Latin root "liber" (free) does not compute.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
This actually looks like an attempt to loosen the restrictions on representatives. http://techdirt.com/articles/20080708/1602521624.shtml
I guess I can see the blogs if it's a statement about democratic policy in general as being maybe an issue, but twitter? Come on, you guys!
stuff |
It's the fable from the bible.
When all of the trees were picking a king, they asked a fruit tree, but he said "I'm too busy making fruit"
They asked a shade tree, but he said "I'm too busy providing shelter for animals"
Then they asked the thorn bush and he said "Sure thing, jerks. I got nothing better to do" and with his newfound royalty, he promptly burned the other trees to cinders.
The efficient, productive members of society are too busy doing their jobs to devote their time to sit in endless, pointless council meetings, knock elbows with the fat stock, and climb a social-political ladder of vipers. We barely have time for our friends, much less coddling those who would so quickly turn on us as enemies. On a much smaller scale, take a look at typical office management. The man who [might know something but] can't do anything himself is the one in charge over everything.
Are there exceptions? Of course. It's hardly a rule if there are no exceptions.
tl;dr version:
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach? Politics!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Would Nancy want a Republican congress disallowing Democratic congressmen from commenting on the issue?
not a communist. Hey Nancy, in Soviet Russia, internet censors you!
Pelosi's support for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, aka "Hush Rush" bill, has been widely reported. Google is your friend.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185
Yahoo News search on "fairness doctrine"
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The market did decide and Air America is going out of business. The liberals didn't like this and are trying to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to force liberal ideas on NPR where they are not listened to.
I'm not not licking toads.
I just called her yesterday and left a message on her voice mail saying that I felt like she was a traitor to the american people after the news came that she was not going to support contempt for karl rove
and I told her that I read it on that website... now she's looking to censor the congress from communicating on the internet? WTF?????!!!!!!!!
That bitch needs to be impeached.
But sometimes an opposing party does a stupid thing that the other party's known for doing, especially when it comes to giving more power to the government. People argue long and hard for one political party or the other, but sometimes people forget that it's like arguing over which hyperactive little boy should get to play with a gun. Also keep in mind that no political party in the world has a minimum IQ requirement (or any real requirements apart from who's scratching who's back for that matter, AFAIK).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
First Congress and the Federal Government gets told what to post and what not to post on the Internet. Then after that US Citizens get told what to post and what not to post on the Internet. Why? Because Nanny says so. Nanny knows best, and if you cross her she will give you a time-out in prison.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Nancy Pelosi is to common sense, what Viagra is to a rubberband.
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
"the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting"
Where the hell did this come from? Oh wait, I know. The Fairness Doctrine says you can't endlessly repeat lies without once and a while admitting the truth. Yep, I have to agree, that would surely curtail conservative so-called speech, which is basically a relentless spew of lies and innuendo.
The writer obviously has a very serious political bias in writing his summary, and I'm calling bullshit on it in a big way. The fairness doctrine simply required equal time for both liberal and conservative views. It didn't censor conservative viewpoints in the slightest, it just meant that stations needed to provide both sides of an argument. The reason it was created was to prevent what ended up happening when it was removed by conservatives in the first place, which was a virtual monopoly over radio stations by a particular group focused on controlling the conversation.
Get your whine on, bitches.
Ha ha ha!
I've posted this as a reply above: there's nothing in the PDF that honestly pertains to "censorship."
I implore you to read the document: there's nothing there pertaining to censorship. The only censorship that could take place is the CHA determining what sites are allowed to carry official house content--and if they're at all honest about it, at all vaguely intelligent about it, they'll know they can't go to an obviously liberal site.
As far as I can tell, this correspondence is nothing more than a simple discussion of which external sites (such as youtube) would be allowed to host embeddable video content for the use of members of congress. The guidelines seem to be strict, but that is simply what this document is--a call that the guidelines used to determine which sites are allowed to host content be no different than those already in place for official House publications. I'm sure the reasoning behind this is that they don't want political or endorsement ads running with those same publications--that would look bad to -anyone-.
BTW: McCain '08, Slashdot.
A country run by four people: President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, Speaker of the Senate. One more dead moderate Supreme Court judge and they won't matter. We'll know how they vote.
Fit the nation's leadership comfortably in a Prius. The way it pretty much is now anyway but Pelosi presumably just doesn't like the occasional criticism or the occasional Representative talking about something he "shouldn't".
Talk about biased and false... "imposing the fairness doctrine which would kept conservatives off the air." Rush Limbaugh's radio show started 5 years before the fairness doctrine was delcared moot by then federal appeals justice Scalia... So, that statement is patently false, and it shows the blatant right wing bias of this post.
1. Leave them with a warm fuzzy feeling while saying nothing.
2. ?????
3. PROFIT! (from the lobbyists and corps in your back pocket!)
Fraud Alert: The Slashdot story seems to be without support elsewhere. It may be a paid Slashvertisement.
Also, if you read the PDF of the letter mentioned, it is about technical limitations of U.S. government support for internet access. The rules proposed seem very sensible. The letter says NOTHING about Nancy Pelosi.
Wow a democrat seeking to not only restrict the first amendment rights of individuals but congress itself. Wow that sounds democratic to me.
What this really comes down to is the Pelosi is a terrible leader and can't get party unity voluntarily the way the Republican leadership does, so she is going the way of the totalitarian dictators. Pretty sad especially with all the morons out there that think its Bush and the Republicans that are the treat to freedom. Both parties are evil but the democratic party is much much more dangerous.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It's pretty simple, when you think about it. Democratic power centers tend to be around government, public institutions and universities, and, quite frankly, churches [fundy protestants aside]! Democrats are all about a sort of civic system that really believes in the role of government, the university and all of the leaders in filtering information and then making decisions, well democratically. In their world, you can't have everyone saying something because, a lot of people don't know what they are doing. There is some validity to that argument except the potential for abuse is so ripe that that we don't do that in America any more. Every President abused the federal power over the media. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon...all are on record as having, at some point, threatened to yank broadcast licenses for airing speech that they didn't like. Cronkite's condemnation of VietNam wasn't just a reporter giving his opinion - it was very well respected reporter putting his rear and his company, CBS, on the line, in the face of government that could have very well shut him down, but ultimately, the government backed down and a decade later Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine altogether. Of course, the government STILL manipulates the press - "oh, you want to talk to a general...."
Republican power centers tend to be around businesses. Guess who generally has more money and wants more independent control? why business does! So yeah, Republicans want to be able to say whatever they want, and pretty much want anyone in the media to be able to say whatever they want, even if it means that Bush or even their own party gets torpedoed by everyone on the planet, as ultimately, such a system makes a better system for our ends.
So.. quite ironically, Democrats are ideologically opposed to unbridled free speech, and Republicans tend more towards it, and, to make matters even crazier, it is the Republican religious belief in free markets that has honestly given way to the commercialization of many of the very alternative lifestyle companies the Democrats socially oppose.
This is my sig.
Polosi doesn't know who she is messing with, doesn't she know that when you fight the internet, you fight Al Gore?
The letter is avialable here
#1 - This is only concerning official House communications...not informal messages from House members.
#2 - The letter is actually requesting to open up external sites (like Youtube) for official House communications since the current house.gov website doesn't meet the needs.
#3 - The restrictions requested ask for similar standing on external sites as they have on house.gov. In other words, offical communication can't be posted along side an Obama banner ad.
ÕÕ
Here it is the government attempting to censor and limit free speech on political matters.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBADE
(not Blockbuster censoring what videos they'd rent)
Now that Reagan did away with that, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk filled that void and now are allowed to spew crap unabated.
In fairness, the only reason it's on the radio is because enough people tune in to listen. If he didn't have an audience, he wouldn't sell ad time. If he didn't sell ad time, no radio station or syndication network on the planet would touch him.
I'm not a particular fan of Mr. Limbaugh either, but the scenario is really quite simple: It costs money to operate a radio station. That cost is paid for by advertising. If a broadcaster does not sell enough ads to pay the bills, they cannot continue operating. What the successful radio hosts (liberal or conservative) do is sell drama. This, in turn, keeps people tuned in and listening - "to see what they're going to say next."
I hate wondering if it's a Democratic Congressman or a Republican Congressman posting here.
thnx. the fair doctrine babble isn't relevant (or correct even) to the discussion.
That's it. I'm taking my English language back.
The OP said that a certain law restricted "conservative" viewpoints, and the parent post rails back that the original poster was "obviously conservative-leaning."
Which is the OPPOSITE of the word's actual meaning. In non-bizarro-world, a CONSERVATIVE opinion would restrict speech to keep from marring the dignity and (more significantly) presenting the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The original poster reflects a LIBERAL stance, in which the importance of an elected official to communicate is more important than avoiding apparent conflicts of interest.
Which one you believe is not relevant; obviously both sides have at least a bit of merit. What bugs me is that the major political parties have co-opted English words.
From now on, say what you mean. If you want to mean conservative or liberal, say conservative or liberal. "Conservative" does not mean RED TEAM, and "Liberal" does not mean BLUE TEAM, which is how they're used in the previous postings. /rant off.
(I really do want to see people start using RED TEAM and BLUE TEAM though. It's not like there's a difference in their ideologies. They're both just after money and power.)
This is a false story and the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with the Internet.
what about a ommercial where officials call jinks and as a result advertise for a favorite lobbying beverage company?
This isn't Pelosi versus the internet, it's Pelosi versus the constitution. The first amendment is more important than her partisan agenda.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yahoo News search on "Pelosi Fairness Doctrine."
Seems to me a lot of people here don't want to believe something that is easily verified.
I feel like Slashdot is turning into an alarmist, sky-is-falling extremist website. All TFA says is that a Congressman's website wants to embed content from an outside site, it has to follow the rules for official government websites. If you have a problem with this rule, why didn't anybody speak up before? These rules for official governmental websites have existed for a while? Nobody is stifling Congressional free speech; they can have outside websites if they please, they just can't link or embed them to their official websites. The cycle is the same; somebody posts a link to a marginally interesting article; posts a crazy headline on it; and tons of slashdotters who didn't RTFA start talking about how the stormtroopers are out to get us. Come on. This desensitizes people to the times when the government REALLY IS taking away our freedoms.
Oh? Just why should any Representative be prohibited in any manner from communicating with those they represent and eliciting and hearing their opinions? Just why does the US Congress enjoy the privilige of franking (sending free snail-mail)?
Nancy is smoking some very bad stuff -- worse than Newt!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was genuinely interested in seeing if anyone could reference actions attributable to the fairness doctrine that effectively suppressed any point of view. According to the wikipedia entry, the Fairness Doctrine:
merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
It seems likely to allow broadcasters freedom to espouse any point of view they wish while simultaneously giving some access to minority or marginalized points of view, and I'm having trouble imagining how this would play out in such a way as to bury any point of view, conservative or otherwise.
But I'm aware the law of unintended consequences has an amazing reach, and it does say the Supreme court found it had a "chilling effect" on speech. I just don't understand the mechanism and am unfamiliar with any specific case, so I figured I'd *ask* for incidences where the Fairness Doctrine was abused to the suppression of conservative views.
Tweet, tweet.
This is the TOP COMMENT in the discussion, a discussion that's already evolved to discover that the summary is largely wrong and misleading. And the comment itself is essentially partisan flamebait with no real information.
I recognize that it's good fun to take every opportunity you can to regale the entire internet with kneejerk responses, and if that's your thing, more power to you. But any mod who marked this "insightful" is unquestionably and irreversibly lobotomized.
Tweet, tweet.
Remember Al & Tipper Gore's charge against "bad lyrics" in 1985?
Remember Al Gore and his running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, threat to impose forms of state censorship on the film, music and video games industries should they win the November election in 2000?
Remember Senator John D. Rockefeller's (D-W.Va) "Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act." of 2005?
Remember Hilary Clinton taking a public stand in favor of shielding children from game and other animation content that she deems inappropriate in 2007?
The republicans arent the only ones taking away your rights...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Is this what slashdot has become?
"old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion"
Say what? There are lots of things that one can say about the fairness doctrine, but how does it become something aimed at conservatives?
The crack about the Fairness Doctrine is particularly illuminating because it is so ignorant.
The Fairness Doctrine. was a pre-internet rule supported by both Conservatives and Liberals, used because the government was controlling who could broadcast television and radio.
Since broadcast mass media "speech" was already totally controlled ("non-free") on the airwaves via the FCC (though for reasons of technology rather than politics), the lucky (and very wealthy) few who had been granted the privilege to broadcast were required to provide time to both sides of any controversial issue. This rule was administered by the FCC, who still performs the same function today with regards to moral standards, language, etc... pretty much everything but politics, where they were instructed by Reagan and Bush (sr. and jr.) to stop (and not yet forced by congress to resume, despite several failed attempts).
The Fairness Doctrine is as irrelevant on the Internet as it is to a newspaper or a public park, since there is no meaningful barrier for anyone to "speak" in these venues.
It will not be thus forever, but today in 2008, TV and radio still have a substantial audience and influence (as evidenced by gross advertising revenues), and it is still only an exclusive, government controlled elite club who can broadcast on these systems. Repealing the Fairness Doctrine essentially allowed the broadcasters as a whole to skew farther to one side of the ideological spectrum or the other legally (where before it would have been very difficult to go too far and stay within the law). Those with wealth and power (and that changes in cycles) can thus use the broadcast media for propaganda purposes, a concept familiar in places like Russia, Italy, etc. and now increasingly familiar here in the USA.
As Rupert Murdoch is now considerably warm towards Barack Obama (see the WSJ), I wonder if Conservatives who previously thought this was a great idea are now beginning to reconsider.
Murdoch himself has a history of switching the political orientation of his propaganda machine; in the U.K., for instance.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
The fairness doctrine doesn't censor anything.
It allows for equal time and space of people with opposing or different views.
No. It REQUIRES equal time and space for people with opposing or different views. Big difference.
Conservative talk radio is a business, collecting revenue by attracting ears for advertisers. It spends long blocks of time - like three hour chunks - on particular points of view. The fairness doctrine would require stations playing it to give equal blocks of time - in equivalent timeslots - to anti-conservative viewpoints, which would NOT attract the target demographic. This would be a massive financial hit (in a number of ways) on any station that played a talk show with enough of a point-of-view to invoke the doctrine.
The result would be that such stations would drop political talk shows entirely. This would leave the entire political content of stations coming from their news coverage (which has been shown, by an objective scale developed by Stanford and UCLA researchers, to be massively left-biased). The entertainment content is similarly left-biased (though not subject to the methodology used on news coverage.) As one big talk show host says: "I AM equal time!"
The left has just as much opportunity to field its own talk shows with its own biases. And it has tried, several times. But (with a few notable exceptions in extremely liberal areas, such as KGO radio in San Francisco) their content has failed to attract enough of an audience to be profitable. So shutting down political talk radio by reinstitution of the so-called "fairness doctrine" would have the effect of massively suppressing conservative political viewpoints on broadcast media.
A flip side is that the conservatives could potentially start a news organization of their own, covering conservative viewpoints. Indeed, this HAS been done to some extent, in the form of Fox News. But FNN has shown its true colors in the primary season: It covers only ONE of the four or so major conservative factions' positions and is perfectly happy to blatantly suppress the others.
Starting a new wholly-owned NETWORK by buying a little station in each major market is forbidden by FCC rules, which limit the amount of the population stations owned by a single entity can reach to well under 50%. So they'd have to recruit a lot of independents. (And you can bet, if they were succeeding, there would be attempts to invoke the fairness doctrine against them, adding massive legal costs to the equation.)
So with talk radio as the only broadcast outlet for conservative political thought (but not effective for liberal positions), and liberal political thought dominating entertainment content and most news coverage, shutting down political talk radio by reimposing the fairness doctrine would be a massive blow to the right and a victory for the left.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Honestly, where in this link, embedded in the article, say anything about limiting members' capabilities to discuss anything?
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF
All the recommendations say is that members of the House should find suitable external sites to host their video content and try to maintain a modicum of their ethics by trying to find sites that don't have advertisements that will be associated with the video content.
Nowhere do the recommendations suggest members of the House can't speak with their constituents or say what they want to. It only recommends that they use "official" house.gov channels to do so.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
many of their supporters aren't exactly the most critical thinkers you could hope to meet. They aren't preaching to the choir - their audience is you. Don't look at me; I voted Libertarian ...
/LabMonkey09
You just need to know how to translate.
"The State of Our Union is Strong": We're all going down the tubes together, and there's no way any of you are getting out of this mess without me!
"We're going to balance the budget": Get ready to be taxed into starvation!
"We're going to have a strong military": The best defense is a powerful, not to mention constantly invoked, offense.
"It's time to start paying down the national debt": I'm a loon who thinks our resources actually merit our credit rating.
"The New Deal is over": Rather than scaling back overburdened entitlement programs which have bred generations of dependency and training our poor to be productive workers, we're going to plunge welfare recipients into utter poverty the likes of which this country hasn't seen in a century, and then jail them for vagrancy.
"The rich aren't paying their fair share": They're paying much more not only in raw dollar figures but as a percentage than anyone else, but screw them because there are more poor voters than rich ones.
"We're going to close the tax loopholes": ...for everyone who's getting out of taxes I don't have to worry about paying. We'll then give big "tax incentives" to people like me.
Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet?
The internet wins for k.o. at first round, and sets a new time record!.
Seriously, even China has huge problems in censoring the internet, why do people think they still can?
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
Sounds like Hillary 2.0. Guess we know where she stands on taxing e-commerce.
I had never heard of it, so I looked it up.
How exactly does the "fairness doctrine" yield the "censorship of conservative opinion"? I don't get it. If the All-Liberal-News-Network is forced to air contrary opinions, and the All-Conservative-News-Network is forced to air contrary opinions, how does "conservative opinion" get the short end of that deal?
I don't think the return of this kind of interference is a good idea in most situations. The only time it might be worthwhile is the situation where a politician is given free airtime during an election campaign, and their opponents are not, which would indeed give an unfair advantage to politicians who happened to be friends with station managers, or who happened to own the stations (for example). If you give one candidate their 15 minutes of fame for free, you really should be obliged to do the same for other candidates. But broader political opinion? No way. Leave that alone.
Think about the situation if Ted Turner decided to run for senator and was appearing on CNN every night, blasting all of his opponents views. It wouldn't exactly be a fair campaign, would it? Likewise, not having some kind of rule on this matter gives media owners an enormous amount of political control over candidates, given how expensive air time is. I suppose it could be said that this kind of interference would be restraining (in this example) Ted Turner's free speech, but I don't think the issue is really about people being able to speak, but to unfairly gain a forum to broadcast that speech.
Perhaps a fairer way to deal with it would be to say "no free (as in beer) speech is to be given by broadcasters to political candidates during a campaign without corresponding free (as in beer) speech to all candidates", and that rates for purchase of airtime during a campaign must be on par too.
Basically, I think it is fine if a broadcaster wants to present a one-sided opinion. I even think it's fine if they invite one politician to the show but not one from another party. That should be their right. But I think it crosses a line if freebees or special broadcasting deals (say, I'll give the liberal candidate half-price and the conservative candidate double price) are used by politicians during a campaign. That should be controlled, but as part of election laws that are tied into the FCC regulations.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185#continueA No guarentees on accuracy; this was a quick search.
/LabMonkey09
Since the letter doesn't mention the fairness doctrine, I wouldn't tilt at that windmill if I were you.
The first part is true, the second part is not. Or at least the second part grants the unsubstained allegation that the recommendations are that evil. The letter reads, to paraphrase:
Nothing about unoffical postings is being mentioned (a member's twitter account, for instance.) And it seeks to expand, not limit, options.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
All I can say sis that's so called liberal democrat openmindedness, tolerance and "choice" for you.
How did we get a right wing propaganda entry onto Slashdot?
Did Slashdot get bought by Rupert Murdoch and no one noticed?
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
I've heard tell of Mr. Ed. I've even heard of Nancy Pelosi, who, last I looked, was a consummate pol and nobody's fool. But I've never heard of "Chicago Boyz" -- are they a couple of blongers at Cheezeburgers 'R' Us? A quick scan of the "blog" reveals an emphassis on hard sell typography. Sheesh. Gimme Drudge any day.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
In other news, a bill is coming before Congress to repeal the first ten amendments to the Constitution and replace them with an amendment making thoughtcrime illegal and punishable by immediate death and demonization without the need for a trial or any due process. Well, maybe it hasn't come before Congress yet, but mark my word -- it will. This is why freedom depends on YOU to monitor what the government is doing and to fight it when things become unfair. So many people around us say that they can't stand politics and so they simply concentrate on their day-to-day lives. This is a mistake, because it means that your life will eventually suck due to these things. Everyone must be involved, not "even if" they're not interested, but "especially if" they're not interested.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
There's a big difference between "official content" (government-owned material) and political activity. It is already illegal for a member of Congress or of the Administration to conduct politics from their government office. Political office holders have separate locations for "campaign offices". What Capuano was talking about was the posting of official content on non-government web sites, like YouTube.
Non-official communications, like blogging, is not impacted by this at all. There is no attack on freedom of speech.
Chicagoboyz is a right wing site that is looking to discredit Pelosi, even if it means lying about what the leadership has planned.
... how much money is generated from approving obviously inaccurate stories like this?
I'd say this is a new low for Slashdot, but I could go back a few years and probably be proven wrong.
Republicans and Democrats are NOT both equally to blame, as many of you are claiming. According to Wikipedia, we have prominent Democrats who support the concept of this Act (Pelosi, John Kerry, Richard Durbin), and Republicans who have acted against it (Reagan vetoed it, Bush Sr. threatened to veto it). While it isn't always fair to classify something as "Democrat" or "Republican", this one seems pretty clear-cut.
The fairness doctrine, though it did reduce liberty, at least had a rationalization. A large portion of the media used a very limited public resource (radio spectrum) and thus could theoretically be monopolized by some opinion.
I don't see a "very limited public resource" existing today. No one voice can monopolize speech now.
Pelosi wants to oppose liberty for no gain. This isn't merely along the currently popular lines of reducing liberty for expedience; this is for nothing.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I like the "Democratic Leadership" bit. Makes her sound like a bit of a lunatic trying to force all the conservatives to stop blogging so she can control all public opinion herself.
I'm guessing that it's actually saying that a senator shouldn't be posting online without approval of senate leadership--the same exact policy they gladly subject military personal to (allow military personal to be subjected to?).
Not that it's right in either case or anything--I just don't see the need to bias a summary like that.
As detailed on techdirt:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080708/1602521624.shtml
This is patently false, and is being spread by Republican Congressman Culbertson as an election year stunt. There is no plan from Pelosi to require such ridiculous approvals.
The actual material quoted bears almost no resembalance at all to the hysteria in the blog.
Can't anybody bother to verify facts before reposting blog ravings of nuts onto /.?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Go read the story. Then read the pdf linked to in the article. Then try to figure out how one relates to another. Then try to figure out where Pelosi comes in.
Someone got a letter that basically recomends removing the restriction that official buisness is only hosted on house.gov servers.
The /. summary and the story it links to are, as far as I can tell from the linked sources, completely fabricated.
I just want to join the chorus of those protesting this blog post as misinformed, reactionary and wrong.
Slashdot needs to reconsider its editorial policy if junk like this gets through so easily.
It ought to bring an end to the over-used "slashkos" accusations. If this site was half as liberal as some people have accused it of being, then the story would have been read (and discarded) by an editor, rather than being fast-tracked to the front page.
You only need to read through the posts in this thread that came from people who couldn't bother to RTFA to see that slashdot has indeed been overrun by conservatives. Several good posts have already shown that the article in question is fud (and even that is stretching it). Yet there are many, many, posts here claiming this to be a sure sign of Nancy Pelosi bringing on the apocalypse.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Someone named Kim Strassel posted her opinion on WSJ?
The East Valley Tribune?
They seem to re-cycle the same nonsense. Certainly Nancy Pelosi, who seems to have no technical knowledge whatsoever, may have said something she shouldn't. But there is no reason to believe that anyone is planning a sweeping change of the rules, and there is no reason to believe that anyone wants that.
The PDF of the letter mentioned in the Slashdot story talks about rules that seem reasonable, and seem to be close to the rules corporate America follows.
And here I was all excited about some awesome revival of Celebrity Deathmatch!
Simple:
They launched a liberal talk radio station.
No one listened.
They shut it down.
They launch conservative talk radio stations.
They thrive.
This is not censorship, but simply free market.
The original fairness doctrine was used when outlets were limited and tightly controlled by a very few and select number of individuals.
Anti-trust laws and ownership regulation of media outlets drastically reduced the need for the Fairness Doctrine.
The basic choice though is whether the free market of ideas, the right of free associate, the right to reject that which you find is wrong is to be regulated by the market dynamics OR the government imposes and regulates that choice. When the government chooses what you can think, hear, say, and associate with you are neck deep in the communist ideaology, where you belong to the state and must comply with the state.
Imagine now that at an NAACP meeting that the KKK now gets it's fair share of time, the Nazi get their fair share of time, etc... You must question the right of the government to mandate the NAACP must give them equal time.
The choice is who decides, the free market or the government.
The same government most people complain about 7 days a week. If you don't trust them with your money why trust them with your mind.
If the free market doesn't decide are you really interested in the government, who's popularity right now is in the SINGLE DIGITS, deciding? Would you want a 70% democrat congress deciding what is fair? How about a 70% republican congress? 70% any party deciding... What happened to personal freedom and personal decision making? Mark my words, watch a Church broadcast on TV and your little tivo box won't let you watch again until you've watched an equal amount of time of some other religion to make sure we are being fair. Hmm 1 hour of Christian, better get in your 1 hour of non-christian broadcast before you can watch any more. 1 Hour of Pro-US broadcast? Better get you 1 hour of Pro-North Korea.
"Thank you for watching Mysteries of the Bible here on Christian TV. Please note that the next 78 hours of Christian TV broadcast, due to the Mysteries of the Bible must now broadcast 1 hour of: ... the list goes on ...
Hindu
Muslim
Confucian
Satantics
Buddist
Hari Krishna
Taoism
Scientology
Heaven's Gate
Branch Dividians
Thank you again for watching Christian TV. We understand that is is near idiotic to pay for Christian TV since we can only show Christian topics once every 78 hours but please remember without your support we couldn't broadcast high quality religious topics once every few days. See you in 78 hours once we have met the Fairness doctrine requirements because not all topics are two sided..."
The fact is that they couldn't cut it in the free market of ideas and now wants a government subsidy to force people like the NAACP to provide fairness in their publications. Imagine BET being told they don't have enough KKK broadcasts in order to be fair and balanced. I give people like David Duke 6 hours before trying that. Any bets on Larry Flint tossing out Hustler on a Nickelodian? CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, guess what, some reps from those terrorist you keep showing want their side of the story told. Yeah the ones that cut the head off one of your reporters. They tallied up that 420 hours of anti-THEM broadcasts and are demanding 420 hours of rebuttle time... Yeah yeah most of them will just rant about their enemies while most people just turn the tv off, I am sure the advetisers won't mind... I'm sure the government will subsidize any lost revenue in order to comply with that doctrine.
Here comes the tax hike...
It is a slippery slope doomed to failure in a nation where most giant corporations are publically owned rather then age old trusts and CEOs must careful court the shareholds to keep them happy.
Be careful what you say /. and think hard before you type. This is a sword who's handle is covered in razors...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Well, now I lean more Republican than Democrat myself (and more Libertarian than either), but you're crazy if you think that free speech is safer with the Republicans than the Democrats. The Democrats have their hate speech and the Republicans have their obscenity and the only reason we still have a first amendment is because they can't agree on why it should be repealed.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
""We're going to balance the budget": Get ready to be taxed into starvation!"
I take issue with that; it sounds like an echo of Ronald Reagan. If taxes were raised now, we still wouldn't even come close to the tax rates of the 1950s; nobody was "taxes into starvation" then. The fact of the matter is, if we continue our current tax policy, we are going to run into increasingly serious problems, which will eventually result in programs that both Democrats and Republicans support having to be cut.
Palm trees and 8
Well, now I lean more Republican than Democrat myself (and more Libertarian than either), but you're crazy if you think that free speech is safer with the Republicans than the Democrats
Two words: Fairness doctrine.
This is my sig.
Two quotes I've posted already on this topic, excerpted from https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-270.html:
One:
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Two:
In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
Me again:
The way it worked was if anyone offered a political editorial on the airwaves, the opposition got free time to state their case. So if you had, say, Rush Limbaugh on your station, you would have to eat the cost of airing three hours of anti-Rush.
more rethuglican bullshit. house rules ALREADY and long have prohibited Official Business being posted anywhere but on the house.gov site. These new rules would OPEN UP other possibilities. Official Business is NOT communication with their constituents. They can communicate however they like, Official Business being limited to house.gov sites has been LONG established and if the rethugs don't like it they could have changed it while they were SO LONG in complete control.
When are we going to be able to moderate the editors?
In this instance, either Timothy didn't RTFA or he did and chose to post this troll to the front page anyway.
Either way, Timothy needs to lose editor karma.
This is total BS. The nation news media and NPR are the biggest left wing radio and broadcast outlets out there. The real reasoning behind this is to try to quash Limbaugh and Hannity because of their popularity. This is laughable at best and just shows why people with her way of thinking should be tossed out of congress on their ears because they don't give two cents what is really good for the American people. Only to filter and censor what we read and hear about.
Here's a news flash: Whenever a person or group has an agenda, they will emit a spew of lies and innuendo.
It's about the only non-partisan thing going on, really.
Code or be coded.
....is a businessman, and any confusion that he has or supports a political ideology other than Rupert Murdoch is entirely misguided. IIRC, he was more than flexible with one of his satellite operations in order to win support/backing from the Chinese Communist government.
Murdoch would have supported Stalin if it got his TV networks watched in the gulag!
http://www.freegovernment.org/ We're looking for a candidate. Details are here: http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/gov/744419368.html
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it was safe with the Democrats. I just meant that it wasn't safe with the Republicans, either.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative propaganda with a capital "P" on television and radio broadcasting
[
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
This is why there are so many conservative radio talk shows and blogs that bash the Democrats. The Democrats are showing exactly why there are so many people with strong feeling against them...who censors the other party? The Nazis did...and I'm in no way trying to say the Democrats are like Nazis, but the point is...censoring the opposing party is oppressive, if you want to beat the other party...then be BETTER than the other party. Censoring them does nothing but create animosity and in my eyes makes you a poor example of what America is all about...when really that's what the government is supposed to conserve. If the Democrats aren't censoring you, then the Republicans are listening in on you...yup, the Democrats really know how to win over us Independents.
Typical Slashdot moderation bias. The truth hurts.
1) Official is elected.
2) Official is escorted into a smoky room where the heads of the most powerful business interests sit.
3) A screen lowers, plays the Kennedy assassination from an angle that no one has ever seen before (the shooter's angle, for the imaginatively-challenged).
4) Screen retracts, the head of the "board" asks the official "Any questions?".
5) Official responds "Uh, what's my agenda?"
Yeah, that sounds about right. Republican (aka Coke - or cocaine, in Bush's case) or Democrat (aka Pepsi). Pick your sugar-water, America.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
How convenient. The liberal mainstream media ignores the Pelosi/Fairness Doctrine story, then you complain that only "rightwing" (I guess Investor's Business Daily is now equal to Rush Limbaugh) news outlets report on it. How convenient!
Shoot the messenger all you want. The fact is, Pelosi has been quoted. Are you disputing these quotes?
At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.
"No," the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that "the interest in my caucus is the reverse" and that New York Democratic Rep. "Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now."
Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.
"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.
"Do you personally support revival of the âFairness Doctrine?'" I asked.
"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
And what congressional district do we need to raze to the ground?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Perfect time for it.
There are only so many super-off peak hours in the broadcast day.
It would limit the amount of high rated right wing radio to about equal to the amount of worthless broadcast time (where the low rated left wingers would/do live).
I'm just glad Pelosi is wasting her time on such nonsense. She could be up to much worse. She will be...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Commercial success has nothing to do with the quality of the material. McDonalds, anyone? A logical conclusion to that would be that commercial failure also has nothing to do with the quality of the material. Unless, of course, you are prepared to give evidence that Air America fails because their views are unpopular? Last I checked, this country is about 50/50 when it comes every fourth November (as of late). Maybe it is because left leaning people don't need some moron babbling on for 3 hours in a row every day to help them form their own opinions?
"Conservative Opinion"? In other words, lies? Like Faux News?
Wah wah wah. Conservatards crush anything liberals say by overwhelming it with lies and stupidity... then whine when people try to shoehorn evil things like "truth" and "facts" into the public arena.
Maybe if Conservatives had the capacity to do something besides hating America, they could win elections.
Well, they are not going out of business, but do you really think that money and corporations should be the only things that decide what opinions and news people get to hear?
You're a funny guy.
Like there's a difference.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What a bullshit biased Slashdot posting. Obviously no-one is requiring approval from the Democratis , but rather from the entire Congress, which last time I checked was a lower-case-d-democratic institution.
Cut the conspiracy-rhetorical lies and stick with the objective facts. Then we can discuss this proposal.
1: Are you high?
2: Can you look at the shit on cable TV news with it's shrill denunciation of everything that isn't White, Christian and Republican and NOT think that maybe a little more balance is something your country needs?
The last 8 years of delusional governance you've suffered is a direct result of an out of whack media kowtowing to the current administration. Balance is something you really should be looking at implementing. When Ann Coulter can get all the airtime she wants but nothing for Noam Chomsky, you've got problems. When is the last time you heard the talking heads actually debate anything, rather than hurl talking points at one another?
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
spew forth whatever vile, bigoted, evil, narrow-minded and just plain wrong corruption because I hold that sewing any ones mouth shut is essentially wrong.
So Dem. Nancy Pelosi or Newt Gingrich, you are dumber than I.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
No. It REQUIRES equal time and space for people with opposing or different views. Big difference.
"It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views."[^]
The fairness doctrine would require stations playing it to give equal blocks of time - in equivalent timeslots - to anti-conservative viewpoints, which would NOT attract the target demographic. This would be a massive financial hit (in a number of ways) on any station that played a talk show with enough of a point-of-view to invoke the doctrine.
It wouldn't, according to the Wikipedia article, but even supposing that it's wrong, I'm not sure I'd have more than a limited problem with that.
What a Fairness Doctrine basically says starts with this premise: spectrum isn't like other property. It's certainly nothing like conventional tangible property which can actually be in someone's possession, yet in many senses it's scarcer and more valuable than other means of expression like a press. Huge utility to it as well. So there's nothing wrong with deciding as a society that it isn't just for investment and wealth, and it isn't just for advocacy of any private viewpoint. There are other obligations that come with it.
I've read the argument from the linked Cato report:
"if political editorials or personal attacks will trigger an obligation in broadcasters to afford the opportunity for expression to speakers who need not pay for time and whose views are unpalatable to the licensees, then broadcasters will be irresistibly forced to self-censorship and their coverage of controversial public issues will be eliminated or at least rendered wholly ineffective. "
Which makes sense if the interests of broadcasters is the only value worth considering in this equation and spectrum is just more property which they own.
But if you subscribe to the idea that it's for more, then it becomes obvious that a business model which finds it impossible to devote any broadcast time to opposing points of view is a less worthy use of spectrum than a business model which can.
Tweet, tweet.
Without the fairness doctrine, spectacularly unhelpful people like Rupert Murdoch can buy up the media and only present one point of view.
The Fairness Doctrine did *zero* to stop these scoundrels from presenting their view - they just had to also present alternative views.
Thanks to the Internet, the "media" is becoming more Democratic, and predators like Sir Rupert have less control than before - but the Fairness Doctrine would still be a very helpful.
Gee - I just love the initial spin here:
The Fairness Doctrine, a doctrine that stated that any use of the public airwaves to broadcast either a liberal *or* a conservative viewpoint, had to also allow for access for an opposing viewpoint, is *censorship*?
Ah - Censorship is telling people they *can't* say something. The Fairness Doctrine is telling people they have a positive responsibility to say something.
If the fact that someone is going to have the chance to mention you're an idiot when you say something is stupid bothers you, then learn from the experience, don't whine "Help - I'm bein' repressed!"
Pug, contemplating adding to the violence inherent in the system.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress
And what is she going to do to congressmen who do it anyways?
Most of you probably remember Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq and went on to help lead the anti-war movement. She is fighting to try and take Pelosi's seat in the next election; if you hate Pelosi like I do, do whatever you can to help.
The letter clearly refers to "official communications", not opinion, and merely talks about providing hosting for video outside the House.gov site for linking to videos from the Congressperson's website. The reference to "franking" should be your clue that the rules referred to have to do with the attempt to separate political campaign materials from materials meant to keep constituents informed. Granted the distinction can be pretty murky. The point is that incumbents have huge advantages over challengers, but they are not allowed to mix campaigning for office with reporting on their official actions at the taxpayers' expense.
Well, they are not going out of business, but do you really think that money and corporations should be the only things that decide what opinions and news people get to hear?
So the market (people) shouldn' decide what we hear but government should?
There is a few countries like that already and I'm not so sure you'd rather live there.
This post is too conservative, therefore, one of us mods had to block it.
(P.S. Go Democrats!) :)
This is why there are so many conservative radio talk shows and blogs that bash the Democrats.
So basically you're saying that the media has a conservative bias?
Is she silly enough to think the the Democrats will control Congress forever? When (if) the Republicans regain control, then it will be they who are doing the censoring. Is this what she wants?
J
Mark my words well, in just a few short years this country will be a socialist dictatorship with a single party. It's coming unless you cry babies grow a pair and vote the leftists out of office. You fear conservatives so much that you're falling into the trap the left has laid for you. Wake up idiots!
Her friend Feinstein said, "Free speech is not what this country is about".
Democrats: Keep porn and violence away from kids. And adults too. Don't fucking swear. Think of the children! At least we're not as bad as...
Republicans: Don't marry another man (or woman). The Internet will die unless Comcast can throttle BitTorrent. Think of the fetuses! (Until they're born, then fry 'em all.)
And that's a very narrow range, from someone who never does as much political research as I should. At least Obama has actually said (or hinted?) that he is in favor of net neutrality...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Have you ever even looked at the controlling stock ownership, management, and boards of the "liberal" media? I think not otherwise you wouldn't dare repeat such an obviously Karl Rove-inspired myth that is patently false. It is clear who owns the media and it isn't the liberals.
As for the bit about mod points - John Katz himself is pretty well flamebait.
Type softly and carry a big stick.
Oh wait... wrong doctrine.
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
everyone trying to offset anything said regardless of facts? no 'democrat' tag? few people screaming that the democrats are the devil? no blind bashing? jesus, you're a bunch of brainwashed shits. unbelievable how easy it is to see when a democrat, google, apple or linux are under the microscope.
Heaven forbid that we should see fair and balanced views online! I mean, if I was forced to consider other viewpoints, I might end up thinking about what I said and who knows what that could lead to. This is clearly directed solely against conservatives and Republicans, and supported by biased libertarian media, like Fox News.
On the other hand, did it say that it would keep all politicians off the net? Hmm, maybe not so bad. Let me think about that.
How does she want to enforce this rule? I sounds . . . unconstitutional, and irrational, and unfair.
Start a blog if you want to engage in mere 'liberal media' ranting. This is a serious website for tech news, not a bulletin board for crackpot Ayn Rand fans.
The worst thing that could happen is for some record of an elected officials opinion to exist.
Karl Marx has been reincarnated as Nancy Pelosi!
"Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk."
~Joaquin Setanti
Hey if it's really about fairness, then it should apply across the boards to all forms of media not just radio. Example, TV. Otherwise it's censorship, spin it however you wish.
To judge what would be considered "fair", you need a standard, otherwise how would the media outlets determine what they need to do to comply? How does a governmental entity develop an objective standard to what constitutes "fair" when opinion is by its very nature subjective? Opinion is like a Jack Thompson - everyone has one.
How would one provide "fair" coverage to a host that is conservative on some matters and liberal on others? (i.e. Dennis Miller, who admittedly leans a bit more to the right, but supports gay marriage, leaves abortion alone, etc.) Would there need to be a one-for-one viewpoint on every issue?
Ultimately, the fairness doctrine is an attempt to regulate speech. Regardless as to what you consider yourself (left/middle/right,) it should concern you that the government is trying to regulate speech and define what is "fair" to say.
Don't forget: the Pentagon opened the door when it forbid soldiers from making any comments on blogs without "approval of their commander."
Muzzle free speech, and it snowballs.
I'm afraid that you've been getting information from rather dubious sources.
This would leave the entire political content of stations coming from their news coverage (which has been shown, by an objective scale developed by Stanford and UCLA researchers, to be massively left-biased).
You are referring here to "A Measure of Media Bias" by Groseclose and Milyo. (And, actually, it wasn't done by Stanford and UCLA researchers -- Groseclose got a PhD in Political Economics at Stanford and then went to UCLA, but he's just one guy.)
Even a quick glance at the paper will raise doubts as to its reliability. Media matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003) has a nice critique of it.
Do you really think that a report that claims that both the ACLU and the NRA are slightly conservative is sensible?
Since this seems to be the cornerstone of your opinion that right-wing talk shows are okay because of the news coverage, I think your argument goes out the window. (And, really, CNN promotes Glenn Beck, and you think they are left-wing?)
Sorry about the lack of breaks. BTW: You may not know but the party has become more "RATIONAL" over the last 5 especially. You may be thinking allot more the "old" party which was much more likely to type policy letters from a shack with a broken keyboard if you ask me. Even Ron Paul is in SOME ways a bit "out there" compared to the current platform.
/LabMonkey09
remember neither you nor I are not the center
You know what I mean. Remember your own bias when looking for bias.
If something seems unbiased to you it is likely left biased.
If something seems unbiased to me it is likely biased against government of any kind. I defend that as justified bias informed by history.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That bitch doesn't know what the First Amendment means -- maybe only 10-15 of them (in the House, and NONE in the Senate) know anything about the Constitution at all. It's all what do I want today? How can I screw the other party? The American people? The whole world?
The world needs a real gene pool cleansing. Let's start at the top this time instead of them starting with us!
So if the legislative branch were to be able to issue partisan "do not speak/discuss/acknowledge existence of" as has been the case with the executive branch, how would this help us, The People? To me, it seems as if the politicians are not even pretending to be working in our best interests anymore.
It seems that the "importance hierarchy" has become a directed graph of personal convenience:
Personal->Party->Personal->Party-supporting citizens->dirt->whale shit->other noisy citizens->citizens->the dispossessed.
Mod this post +1 Tired of It All.
Be as you would have the world become.
Wipe this bitch's memory or something!