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"
the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting
[Citation needed]
Tweet, tweet.
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!
How dare you? If you post the real document people might read it! And see that this - analysis? - is a crock of horseshit.
Which is one thing I don't get. The "Right" is always complaining that the "Mainstream Media is Liberal!!11!1!11!elevetyone!!" is it not? So, in holding with that theory, if they're not lying the fairness doctrine would help them. Look at it this way, if the media were truly liberal, then they'd have to have more conservative guests to meet fairness doctrine rules.
Then again, since the mainstream media is corporate (i.e. what sells ads) and not liberal, would it really matter?
People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
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.
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.
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.
Some of these ground rules are
The hyperbole by the obviously conservative-leaning original poster and the TFA is ridiculous and is just a prime example of alarmist propaganda, trying to blow this WAY out of proportion.
It's simply a proposal for ground rules as the committee examines extending the ability of members of congress to post "official" content outside of existing official channels. Rather than being a "clamp down", it's actually broadening the number of venues members of congress can use for posting "official" congressional communications, but tries to ensure that there will be some level of decorum and good taste.
Start a happiness pandemic
Hm. Maybe I am in the wrong, but it is starting to appear to me that some newsposts on Slashdot needs to be reviewed more carefully. Then again having crap served to us now and again is perhaps good for keeping us critical.
The Long Now Foundation
Nancy Pelosi is a VERY weak woman, it seems to me.
She's the Democratic leader Republicans would choose.
Please don't vote if you don't realize McCain is a senator is this has to do with House rules.
I wonder how the Founders would have reacted to such proposed restrictions on their conduct.
Hmm. Did they not become founders (of a new nation), because of such restrictions on their conduct (among other things)?
We don't have to ask how they would have acted: we know how they did act.
Of course the Honorable House Majority Leader would claim that right-wing spin, in the absence of "fairness" is the source of that historical account.
If public funds are used to pay for a political message from an elected representative, it stands to reason that some allotment of public funds are available to all elected representatives for such purposes. Let the comm^H^H^H^Hdemocrats pay for their own damn propaganda.
(And, for the record, I am libertarian, and take equal issue with many things the right does as well).
In Liberty, Rene
The hyperbole by the obviously conservative-leaning original poster and the TFA is ridiculous and is just a prime example of alarmist propaganda, trying to blow this WAY out of proportion.
Why do the poster and TFA have to be necessarily conservative? They may simply have been misinformed (i.e., didn't read up on everything) or have some other reason to dislike Pelosi (i.e., she ran over their cat).
Never forget Hanlon's razor.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
I'll counter with Grey's law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Start a happiness pandemic
Everything you said doesn't make the "fairness doctrine" less wrong. It has always been a perverse affront to free speech through the use of technical loopholes.
It should never see the light of day again.
What the fairness doctrine did was killing meaningful speech on the radio. What radio station wants to spend all day dealing with complaints that some opinion needs to be balanced having to give airtime to something people may not want to hear?
Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to kill conservative talk. It will also kill NPR. But whatever.
So even if the Fairness Doctrine doesn't in a vacuum violate the 1st amendment, it is being implemented to squelch speech. That's its purpose.
It is a tactic worthy of Putin or Chavez.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
impugn the dignity of the congress.
Do you know what to impugn means, or why prohibiting it is an infringement on free speech?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, freedom is speech is the government telling radio stations what must be played?
I'd only buy into the "fairness doctrine" if ABC, CBS, PMS-NBC, and CNN all were required to have "neutral" spin as well, which we all know won't happen because one cannot be biased to the left--only to the right.
On another note, IIRC, the fairness doctrine was put in place to prevent socialists from running the airwaves. Its funny how if you give the government an inch, it will want a mile--the fairness doctrine is nothing more than a blatant attack on the First Amendment (and, thankfully, the Fairness Doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with this slashdot post).
No, because the fairness doctrine as it's usually touted is really focused toward radio. In which the conservatives have a pretty fixed control. Versus TV/print media where the liberal thought is more dominant.
However, attempts at having equal footing in those areas are often rebuttled or dismissed. So really "fairness doctrine" pretty much translates into "legislating 1/2 of conservative talk radio off the air and replacing them with liberals". And essentially forcing the conservatives radio listeners to subsidize liberals. It will likely bankrupt radio. (As the major liberal radio initiatives have repeatedly gone bankrupt even with big bankrolls backing them.) And the money will have to come from somewhere.
It's also the DUMBEST thing the Democrats could ever do. It would be seen as such an illegal affront to conservative radio listeners that nothing would re-mobilize the conservative base more.
You mean 'according to the ridiculously overblown interpretation of conspiracy nuts and politicians looking to create a scandal where none exists.'
First, Pelosi isn't mentioned in the source material at all. Second, the source material mentions updates to existing rules to accommodate new technology, not new regulations. Third, the updates cover official House of Representatives communications (i.e., the House as an organization), not the communications of individual Congressman.
Reading your response, I understand how pernicious memes like "the liberal media" become powerful without any basis in reality.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
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.
The author of the blog is apparently a factually-challenged right-wing nutjob whose reading comprehension places him or her at, generously, a 2nd grade reading level.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Secondly, even a cursory review of the letter disproves the blogger's rant. The letter itself states that the recommendations do not change any of the rules governing members of congress in their official communications.
Why do right-wing bloggers tend to be so stupid? I mean, stupidity isn't restricted to any one side of the ideological spectrum, but for some reason on the internet the right-wing fruitcakes like the blogger in question exhibit such profound stupidity that it makes you wonder how they function in day-to-day life. I mean, you'd think their mental deficiency would result in them blowing themselves up or poisoning themselves, or getting run over by a train or something.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
John Katz — a long-time Slashdot "editor" — was farther to the left than Gorbachev...
Well, look at the moderation for instant rebuttal of your comment. You are already at 4 "insightful" (my ass), and I'm at 1 "flamebait"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why do right-wing bloggers tend to be so stupid? I mean, stupidity isn't restricted to any one side of the ideological spectrum, but for some reason on the internet the right-wing fruitcakes like the blogger in question exhibit such profound stupidity that it makes you wonder how they function in day-to-day life. I mean, you'd think their mental deficiency would result in them blowing themselves up or poisoning themselves, or getting run over by a train or something.
Some of it may be stupidity, but I suspect that most of it is merely propaganda. The big lie works best, kind of thing.
Also, many of their supporters aren't exactly the most critical thinkers you could hope to meet.
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
Some of these ground rules are
Could this little nugget be used to drop the hammer on an ISP that wants to reframe web pages to include advertising sold by the ISP? I am not going to hold my breath, but it would be nice for something accidental out of Congress to be useful.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
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!
It is widely known that Pelosi supports the fairness doctrine. The reason she wants to restore it is to censor talk radio. This is because she is very widely reviled, not only by ordinary Californians, but by the hosts of the biggest talk radio shows in her state. I know because I listen to them. So while arguing about history let's not dismiss the immediate facts, eh?
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
And they just happen to be the ones who are telling you she wants to shut down/censor Conservative radio. Sounds like they are making up their own "immediate facts" to create outrage while there is none.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
This isn't that a congress critter can't do something the "impugn the dignity of congress" they just can't do it and stamp it as an "official" congressional document. It simply is not an official opinion of the congress, but rather that of the individual.
They're still perfectly welcome to post whatever bile they want on airportbathroomstalltoetappers.com, or whatever website they wish. This isn't terribly unique either, I can't go around posting whatever crap I want for the company I work for and label it an official company position. I can still say whatever I want, I just can't pretend that I'm somehow representing my company while doing it, and similarly a member of congress, working for Congress and our government as a whole can't state things and represent it as the official position of Congress and our government arbitrarily either.
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.
Because the letter is two pages, with quite a bit of white space. The second paragraph explains that the current rules are overly restrictive and need to be relaxed. If it is a case of being misinformed, it is because they willfully did not read the primary source. That usually only happens when the story you are hearing is in line with your own prejudices already.
Add to
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The Original Post is about Congress getting approval before they put any offical business on websites outside of House.gov. Your Plethora of links about Pelosi supporting a separate issue (fairness doctorine) has no bearing on the original article (other than one unrelated mention of it in the summary). It's like If i wrote "George Bush, a texan, supports bombing Iran", and for proof, I linked a bunch of stories about Bush being born in texas. I think you are confused.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
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.
It wasn't created to target Conservatives, however what the purpose of reviving it appears to be geared towards targeting Conservative talk radio.
Walk with me, if you will. You can get both Conservative and Liberal leaning news from websites, television and newspapers. However, the same cannot be said about radio. It is dominated by Conservative talk radio, and the only Liberal talk radio has survived essentially subsidized by the government.
Any medium of news is subsidized through ad revenue, and ad revenue is based upon the ratings of the shows during which they air. Rush Limbaugh along generates a constant 13.6 million listeners during the course of his 3 hours show. On the other hand, the best ratings I've found for Air America is 1.5 million unique listens over a week. Air America just doesn't generate enough ad revenue to keep it in enough markets, proof being that they had to file for bankruptcy.
Now how does all of this and the fairness doctrine show an attempt to censor conservative talk radio?
Ratings show that liberal talk radio just cannot compete against conservative talk radio. It doesn't get carried, or it gets dismally low ratings. Radio stations that carried shows like Rush's would be required to carry liberal shows (or at least the liberals mentioned) for the same amount of time. Mind you, the Fairness Doctrine applies to stations, not the individuals that produce the shows the stations carry.
Now with the fairness doctrine, a station would almost certainly be forced to carry 3 hours of Air America for every 3 hours of Rush's show in order to make close to the balance required by the act. You won't get Rush letting liberals on his show to defend themselves against his points, so the stations need to adapt as best they can. Here's where the problem comes, since the liberal shows will not draw as much revenue as the conservative ones, it may cost the station enough revenue that they wouldn't be able to operate in the black. Since they're hijacked by the law to reduce their revenue, they either go out of business, or get non-controversial programing that allows them to operate in the black.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I think the problem was that you couldn't express an editorial opinion without opening the television studio's door to every wacko in town. While the original intent may been good, the result was that most stations avoided doing anything that was even mildly controversial.
How would you like it if you owned a newspaper and you couldn't write an editorial without supplying equal space to anyone with an opposing view?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
So who exactly do you think Pelosi wants to target with the Fairness Doctrine?
You don't need to think to be a libertarian, you just need to memorize the party mantra, "The Free Market Will Fix It." No money for Health Care? TFMWFI. Lost your job due to outsourcing? TFMWFI. Your grandmother has gout? TFMWFI.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I did not, actually, call Slashdot that — I just, such was an impression. I even said, the impression is now wearing off ever since John Katz stopped posting.
No, that alone does not. However, Slashdot is doing just that with the other side — the poster I replied to mentioned "crazy [emphasis mine -mi] right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories" and achieved a "5-star" rating. My mere suggestion, that Slashdot may have — in the past — given an impression of being left-wing (not even "crazy"), doomed me to a "-1".
To argue, as you do, that there is no pro-Left (or, perhaps, an anti-Right) bias here, is ridiculous... Sorry, but I'm not participating any further...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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
If you think someone can "OWN" a radio frequency, let me ask you who they would buy it FROM - if not US? Oh, I guess you didn't think about that part.
I get it, you think there shouldn't be a government. Just some kind of corporate-controlled world. But We, the People think there should be. We HAD a corporate controlled country in the 1700s, and fought back and won. So we set up a governemt of our own and you might just have to move somewhere where there aren't other people if you really think this way.
So you don't think we own our airwaves as a common resource. I suppose you also think We, the People have no right to the air we breath, water, health, etc. We are all just economic units, here to serve the corporate masters. If we have money to pay them for air and water, good. If not, too bad for us.
Before the government (We, the People) stepped in to license airwaves what we had was anyone with a transmitter broadcasting at any power level they wanted on any frequency they wanted. So the radio frequencies were pretty much useless, with those with the most money the only ones able to reach anyone. I suppose that's what you want to have again?
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.