They really shouldn't be. It's exactly the same except now you kill foozles instead of woozles. In my opinion, Burning Crusade made WoW worse than it was before, not better. I bought a copy of BC and a couple weeks later cancelled my account permanently. All Burning Crusade really did was reset the game to a level 70 cap and make everything accomplished before level 61 irrelevent.
Some people want more of exactly the same, but combined with Vivendi's foolish idea that removing dps class roles from the game would somehow improve the game by disenfranchising rogues and mages, the game ended up being more of the same but distinctly worse. Since the release of the expansion there has been a steady trickle of people in my former guild quitting the game. It seems only the really new players actually like the expansion, mostly because they hadn't invested time into doing level 60 activities and thus didn't end up wondering why everything that had accomplished in the game to date had to be rendered utterly useless by the expansion.
Bush isn't blasted for fighting to free people. He's blasted for being an incompetent boob. He didn't really free Iraq. He eliminated a dictator and plunged the country into a religious civil war. You can't be free when you're afraid to go outside because someone might shoot you because you either worship the wrong god or worship the same god but in the wrong way.
That ain't freedom. That's anarchy. Ironically, you need to sacrifice some freedoms to actually be able to use the rest of them. There's no freedom in Iraq only death and despair.
See, I can't agree that it's "laziness" to skip reading the clickthrough contract. You seemed to fail to understand the entire point. Reading the contract provides no benefit to the customer. He can't change it, he's already paid for the product and in all likelyhood it says nothing of importance. I'm sorry but most people value their time more than the maximum potential damage caused by not reading the contract. It's not laziness at all, it's enlightened self-interest.
On the other side, I don't like botters at all. However, I also sympethize with at least some of the players. I used to play WoW. I quite shortly after BC came out, I just realized that Vivendi was making it take longer and longer to do stuff so they could drag memberships out. People bot because they don't want to kill 3200 red orcs to be able to buy the good weapon and 4800 blue orcs to be able to buy the good shield. I hated having quests where you had to collect "12 pieces of sandworm meat" only to have to kill 5 worms to find 1 piece. And since, of course, it's a quest item, it's soul bound thus can't be traded and only drops while you have the quest.
I just became disgusted with how WoW was forcing players to endlessly grind to get anywhere, and with the announcement that they plan reset of the game every year now (by increasing the level cap and releasing a new expansion that makes all previous end game content not worth playing), instead of gradually releasing content patches, I can see all too clearly how Vivendi is exploiting their players.
So yes, it is in fact partially Vivendi's fault that they've turned the game into something that people want to spend less time playing and paying for. I still blame the asshats for cheating, but I can also blame Vivendi for making cheating this way such a tempting choice.
There's two problems with the click-through contracts: 1) They're too damned long for what they're protecting and usually written in legal jargin that makes them difficult for the layman to understand.
2) They're presented after offer and acceptance has already been completed. Even if you provide a way for someone to return the software for a full refund if they choose not to agree to the EULA, it's not actual a binding agreement according to the legal code. The problem, you can't modify an agreement after it's been reached without providing something for both parties in the agreement. Click through licenses, generally, only offer additional duties to the purchaser without providing any additional value to the purchaser and since they generally block usage of the software unless you agree to the click-through they are largely uneforceable, the provider is simply not allowed to change the nature of the contract once you've agreed to purchase the software.
Now Vivendi might be able to get away with it since technically the box only gives you 1 month of playing time and most people purchase their 2nd and subsequent months directly from the WoW web site and thus the offer and acceptance problem could be resolved by having people agree to the conditions at purchase time. This, however, might not apply to anyone purchasing time cards as the original offer and acceptance problem applies to them as well.
So the point is they're not real contracts because: 1) There is no actual agent on the other end of the contract to provide for modifications if you disagree with any provisions of the contract. 2) The contract is provided at a point where it is no longer legally allowed to impose additional conditions on the agreement. 3) The contract is deliberately written in a way to make it's provisions inaccessible to the people it's supposedly to apply to. 4) The contract is agreed to by clicking a single button, not signed on paper as is standard procedure for important contracts. 5) The contract is at it's most basic level simply unimportant it covers a transaction so small that if the contract had to actually be written for the transaction specifically the cost of the contract would far, far outweigh the cost of the transaction.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer so this is just my limited understanding of some of the basic legal issues that the defence will likely raise. The plaintiff might right just say "we published the rules of the game, and the defendents refuse to adhere to those rules, we'd like an injuction preventing them from playing the game or helping others cheat at the game". That's a pretty basic and compelling argument for granting the injunction.
On the other hand the reason why people cheat at WoW is patently obvious, Vivendi has substituted killing the same monster 3,200 times for actual content. They call it reputation grinding and it's generic friend money grinding. It's a way to slow down character progression and drag out the length of player subscriptions.
I think Vivendi has entered the "rape the dead body of Blizzard for cash" section of the buyout process, and I don't see good things in store for the World of Warcraft as they tighten the screws ever harder.
This is really a legal issue? Can I be put in jail for taking a few 100 extra monopoly dollars when no one is looking? The first thing I can think of is Insider Trading, which is punishable, but is a video game = the stock market?
I think this is a case of technicality. Because the players are required to agree to a contract that stipulates they will follow the rules of the game which prohibit bots, then by providing the bots to break those rules means you are encouraging others to break a contract. Furthermore, to develop the WoW Glider, they obviously had to have a WoW account to test it on, and therefore are themselves guilty of breaking the ToS.
I have no idea where encouraging others to break a contract can be actionable under those conditions, but it's a little less cut and dried than making counterfeit monopoly money, because of the contract that you have to agree to to play. A big problem for Vivendi could be that click-through contracts are not real contracts. No one bothers to read them because they're a waste of time and probably not legally binding in any way.
I've done it, it's no worse than the people who did level up to 60 and never learned how to play either. In fact it can be quite a bit better... Having said that most competent players will pick up their new class very quickly even without having levelled it, it's the incompetent players that are trouble, and it takes great amounts of practice to make them passable at any class.
Every good DM knows that's not the case. If your story telling abilities are no better than a multiple choice book and your friends only have as much personality as paper, then you've got other problems than picking exciting numbers. You control the entire world, allowing the dice to fall where they may (most of the time, anyway) is usually a good idea. Otherwise your players will figure out that the game is rigged one way or the other.
Except it's going to continue. You see there are more content owners supporting Blu-Ray than there are HD-DVD which means for the foreseeable future (ie, the list of announced releases for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD), there will be consistently more Blu-Ray releases than HD-DVD releases.
If new releases are what drives sales, and there are more Blu-Ray players out there, and there are more new releases coming out for Blu-Ray, Sony's holding all the cards in the Next-Gen DVD battle. The only thing left to determine is whether they can turn their victory into market success, or whether Next Gen DVD will end up like laser disk, forgotten.
Actually, I don't believe that at all. Jack only seems believes what he says because it's convenient to do so. He's out there to make himself rich and famous, first and foremost. He knows there's a big demographic who love anybody who's a champion for children and decency regardless of what they actually do or say. All he needs to do is denounce things for the sake of the children to get a couple more minutes of fame.
You'll notice as soon as his current "cause celebre" falls out of favour he's on to something new that's "ruining America's children". He's an a scum sucking bottom swiller who'll tell you anything to get on TV. In otherwords, he smells too much like a charlatan.
Don't forget the important part, that someone making the penalties for copyright infringement more severe would punish those criminals in Montreal that they can't find any evidence to prove that they're actually copying movies without permission. That's right, you see the real problem here is that the MPAA has to go through the tortuous hoops of collecting evidence and proving a crime has been comitted in a court of law before they're allowed to jail people for infringing on their rights.
I think he means, these games, no matter how much fun other people find them, hold zero appeal to me. I've tried WarioWare and found it mindnumbingly stupid and pointless.
Microsoft doesn't make cell phones or have a monopoly on cell phone embedded operating systems, thus it is against their interests to support or encourage this type of device.
That was one of the coolest features, the only other game I've seen it done well in was Fallout. In both games intelligence had a big effect on what you could say, and charisma had a big effect on how people reacted to what you said.
Actually I was giving a specific example where abridging freedom generates greater freedom, as paradoxical as that may sound. You can certainly argue that speaking does not trample someone's else right to speak, except that it does if I can not speak because you are constantly speaking through your megaphone. Which is one reason, most communities have public nuisance and noise ordinances, because given the opportunity someone will inevitable do so.
Unlike you, I suppose, I like the basic idea of the "Fairness Doctrine". That is that one-sided presentations of controversial issues are not in the public interest.
Some people, as I think you do, think that this is a response to the rise of talk radio's demagogues, and it could well be. Of course, the democrats were against the repeal of this law before the rise of talk show demagogues, so it's not likely the only reason. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to believe these talk show demagogues have been instrumental in pushing the Republican political agenda. I'd say conservative, but I think most of them are only as conservative as the Republican party wants them to be. Of course, this argument is pointless, while it would be a small victory for the Democrats, the consequences on the political prospects of either party shouldn't matter to anyone outside of them, and thus this is not a compelling argument, any more than claiming that any particular rule in football discrimates against your team.
Beyodn that the most common argument against it, is that the implementation will be bad. That is pretty likely, it is the American government after all. But it seems to me there are reasonably good ways to implement the doctrine that do not involve heavy handed regulation. For instance, an alternate implementation of the doctrine might require that broadcast shows provide a minimal amount of time for opposing views to be aired, if requested, with a minimum of 1/12 of the show duration or the length of the rebuttal which is ever is lower (shows are free to air longer rebuttals if they wish).
The matching right-wing shows with left-wing shows is utter rubbish, and was never a part of the original Doctine which was in effect for almost 40 years from 1949 to 1987.
One of the reasons that the this might be a good idea is to combat the increasing ease with which people can isolate themselves (even unitentionally) from diversity of opinion. It is a theory that the isolating effect is driving the increasingly partisan politics of the United States.
Now, there is a very good reason for conservative (or more specifically Republican) partisan to fear the Fairness Doctrine, as it turns out the so-called "liberal media" has been doing a much better job of airing a diversity of opinion, it appears to be mostly conservative talk radio that has had an incredible derth of opposing viewpoints. As I mentioned earlier, a reasonable implementation of the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't force them off the air, but might break the facade of perfect conservatism that is so tireless built around them. This is certianly a very good reason for Republican partisans to fight against the Fairness Doctrine in every way possible.
Of course, the Fairness Doctrine debate is moot, it can't be implemented until 2009 at the earliest, unless some truly exceptional events take place. If the bill makes it's way to Bush, he'll veto it, just like Reagan did.
Ok, so you do acknowledge that a news show may be popular for reasons other than the job they do at reporting the news.
"A news show which does a lousy job of reporting the news is soon out of business" isn't quite right.
"A news show which does a [substancially worse job] of reporting the news [than it's competitors] is soon out of business" is better, I think.
I do know that I vastly prefer both the Canadian and British news media to the American one, so I wouldn't call the U.S. media excellent. Before passing any such judgement there really should be some objective measure of quality. It should be disturbing that audience testing indicated that watchers of the Daily Show had a greater understanding of the current events than watchers of the cable and network news shows. So, if the criteria was dissemination of information those shows definitely could be improved.
Of course, this is not at all unexpected. News shows aren't paid to inform people, they're paid to get people to watch.
1) Believe that absolute freedom is the ideal and we accept that weak will be dominated by the strong.
or
2) Believe some freedoms must be compromised to achieve the greatest net freedom for everyone? So we prevent the weak from being dominated the strong?
This has nothing to do with who's message I like or don't like and everything to do with the logical paradox of giving people the freedom to oppress others. Only by oppressing tyrants can you prevent them from oppressing others.
If the news media (which should, in theory, have a duty to inform the public) isn't informing the public, how is the public going to know what they aren't being told?
Say whatever you want, but you have to share your public resource with others to make sure the public, which might I remind you owns the radio frequency you are monopolizing, is served to the best extent possible.
Furthermore, I'm going to throw an issue that no one appears to have mentioned before:
Is it in the best interests of a society that it be polarized by a division of the media along ideological lines? Let's pretend we have conservative media, which only airs conservative viewpoints and liberal media, which only airs liberal viewpoints. Is this healthy for society? Or is this going to create a factional divide where moderation is disdained? I don't know the answer, but I know I inherently like the idea of having every group of extremists forced to give time to people they disagree with. It's very easy to get away with deception and trickery when you preach to the choir, and you lock all dissenting opinion out. It's another issue entirely when you grant (or have to grant) people who disagree with you the right to take the pulpit and say their piece.
Will it work in practice? Maybe, maybe not. But the idea itselfs seems good.
Slashdot Mirror
They really shouldn't be. It's exactly the same except now you kill foozles instead of woozles. In my opinion, Burning Crusade made WoW worse than it was before, not better. I bought a copy of BC and a couple weeks later cancelled my account permanently. All Burning Crusade really did was reset the game to a level 70 cap and make everything accomplished before level 61 irrelevent.
Some people want more of exactly the same, but combined with Vivendi's foolish idea that removing dps class roles from the game would somehow improve the game by disenfranchising rogues and mages, the game ended up being more of the same but distinctly worse. Since the release of the expansion there has been a steady trickle of people in my former guild quitting the game. It seems only the really new players actually like the expansion, mostly because they hadn't invested time into doing level 60 activities and thus didn't end up wondering why everything that had accomplished in the game to date had to be rendered utterly useless by the expansion.
Bush isn't blasted for fighting to free people. He's blasted for being an incompetent boob. He didn't really free Iraq. He eliminated a dictator and plunged the country into a religious civil war. You can't be free when you're afraid to go outside because someone might shoot you because you either worship the wrong god or worship the same god but in the wrong way.
That ain't freedom. That's anarchy. Ironically, you need to sacrifice some freedoms to actually be able to use the rest of them. There's no freedom in Iraq only death and despair.
See, I can't agree that it's "laziness" to skip reading the clickthrough contract. You seemed to fail to understand the entire point. Reading the contract provides no benefit to the customer. He can't change it, he's already paid for the product and in all likelyhood it says nothing of importance. I'm sorry but most people value their time more than the maximum potential damage caused by not reading the contract. It's not laziness at all, it's enlightened self-interest.
On the other side, I don't like botters at all. However, I also sympethize with at least some of the players. I used to play WoW. I quite shortly after BC came out, I just realized that Vivendi was making it take longer and longer to do stuff so they could drag memberships out. People bot because they don't want to kill 3200 red orcs to be able to buy the good weapon and 4800 blue orcs to be able to buy the good shield. I hated having quests where you had to collect "12 pieces of sandworm meat" only to have to kill 5 worms to find 1 piece. And since, of course, it's a quest item, it's soul bound thus can't be traded and only drops while you have the quest.
I just became disgusted with how WoW was forcing players to endlessly grind to get anywhere, and with the announcement that they plan reset of the game every year now (by increasing the level cap and releasing a new expansion that makes all previous end game content not worth playing), instead of gradually releasing content patches, I can see all too clearly how Vivendi is exploiting their players.
So yes, it is in fact partially Vivendi's fault that they've turned the game into something that people want to spend less time playing and paying for. I still blame the asshats for cheating, but I can also blame Vivendi for making cheating this way such a tempting choice.
There's two problems with the click-through contracts:
1) They're too damned long for what they're protecting and usually written in legal jargin that makes them difficult for the layman to understand.
2) They're presented after offer and acceptance has already been completed. Even if you provide a way for someone to return the software for a full refund if they choose not to agree to the EULA, it's not actual a binding agreement according to the legal code. The problem, you can't modify an agreement after it's been reached without providing something for both parties in the agreement. Click through licenses, generally, only offer additional duties to the purchaser without providing any additional value to the purchaser and since they generally block usage of the software unless you agree to the click-through they are largely uneforceable, the provider is simply not allowed to change the nature of the contract once you've agreed to purchase the software.
Now Vivendi might be able to get away with it since technically the box only gives you 1 month of playing time and most people purchase their 2nd and subsequent months directly from the WoW web site and thus the offer and acceptance problem could be resolved by having people agree to the conditions at purchase time. This, however, might not apply to anyone purchasing time cards as the original offer and acceptance problem applies to them as well.
So the point is they're not real contracts because:
1) There is no actual agent on the other end of the contract to provide for modifications if you disagree with any provisions of the contract.
2) The contract is provided at a point where it is no longer legally allowed to impose additional conditions on the agreement.
3) The contract is deliberately written in a way to make it's provisions inaccessible to the people it's supposedly to apply to.
4) The contract is agreed to by clicking a single button, not signed on paper as is standard procedure for important contracts.
5) The contract is at it's most basic level simply unimportant it covers a transaction so small that if the contract had to actually be written for the transaction specifically the cost of the contract would far, far outweigh the cost of the transaction.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer so this is just my limited understanding of some of the basic legal issues that the defence will likely raise. The plaintiff might right just say "we published the rules of the game, and the defendents refuse to adhere to those rules, we'd like an injuction preventing them from playing the game or helping others cheat at the game". That's a pretty basic and compelling argument for granting the injunction.
On the other hand the reason why people cheat at WoW is patently obvious, Vivendi has substituted killing the same monster 3,200 times for actual content. They call it reputation grinding and it's generic friend money grinding. It's a way to slow down character progression and drag out the length of player subscriptions.
I think Vivendi has entered the "rape the dead body of Blizzard for cash" section of the buyout process, and I don't see good things in store for the World of Warcraft as they tighten the screws ever harder.
I think this is a case of technicality. Because the players are required to agree to a contract that stipulates they will follow the rules of the game which prohibit bots, then by providing the bots to break those rules means you are encouraging others to break a contract. Furthermore, to develop the WoW Glider, they obviously had to have a WoW account to test it on, and therefore are themselves guilty of breaking the ToS.
I have no idea where encouraging others to break a contract can be actionable under those conditions, but it's a little less cut and dried than making counterfeit monopoly money, because of the contract that you have to agree to to play. A big problem for Vivendi could be that click-through contracts are not real contracts. No one bothers to read them because they're a waste of time and probably not legally binding in any way.
I've done it, it's no worse than the people who did level up to 60 and never learned how to play either. In fact it can be quite a bit better... Having said that most competent players will pick up their new class very quickly even without having levelled it, it's the incompetent players that are trouble, and it takes great amounts of practice to make them passable at any class.
Every good DM knows that's not the case. If your story telling abilities are no better than a multiple choice book and your friends only have as much personality as paper, then you've got other problems than picking exciting numbers. You control the entire world, allowing the dice to fall where they may (most of the time, anyway) is usually a good idea. Otherwise your players will figure out that the game is rigged one way or the other.
Except it's going to continue. You see there are more content owners supporting Blu-Ray than there are HD-DVD which means for the foreseeable future (ie, the list of announced releases for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD), there will be consistently more Blu-Ray releases than HD-DVD releases.
If new releases are what drives sales, and there are more Blu-Ray players out there, and there are more new releases coming out for Blu-Ray, Sony's holding all the cards in the Next-Gen DVD battle. The only thing left to determine is whether they can turn their victory into market success, or whether Next Gen DVD will end up like laser disk, forgotten.
It clearly benefits anyone who will buy (or sell) 1080p TVs over the next 5 years.
Actually, I don't believe that at all. Jack only seems believes what he says because it's convenient to do so. He's out there to make himself rich and famous, first and foremost. He knows there's a big demographic who love anybody who's a champion for children and decency regardless of what they actually do or say. All he needs to do is denounce things for the sake of the children to get a couple more minutes of fame.
You'll notice as soon as his current "cause celebre" falls out of favour he's on to something new that's "ruining America's children". He's an a scum sucking bottom swiller who'll tell you anything to get on TV. In otherwords, he smells too much like a charlatan.
I always find it amusing when fan bois fight other fan bois. It's a win-win situation for everyone else...
As long as we don't have to listen to them.
This may be redundant, but Starcraft and Fallout 2 were generation '98.
So while they are way, way better than some of the games on that list, they just didn't meet the age requirements for consideration.
Damn you! They're cancelling the "We're #1" parade because of you.
Don't forget the important part, that someone making the penalties for copyright infringement more severe would punish those criminals in Montreal that they can't find any evidence to prove that they're actually copying movies without permission. That's right, you see the real problem here is that the MPAA has to go through the tortuous hoops of collecting evidence and proving a crime has been comitted in a court of law before they're allowed to jail people for infringing on their rights.
And nobody's copying the movies that $12,000/year actors appear in. Seems fair.
I think he means, these games, no matter how much fun other people find them, hold zero appeal to me. I've tried WarioWare and found it mindnumbingly stupid and pointless.
Are you trying to sell me on the upcoming Warhammer MMOG?
It's simple:
Microsoft doesn't make cell phones or have a monopoly on cell phone embedded operating systems, thus it is against their interests to support or encourage this type of device.
That was one of the coolest features, the only other game I've seen it done well in was Fallout. In both games intelligence had a big effect on what you could say, and charisma had a big effect on how people reacted to what you said.
Actually I was giving a specific example where abridging freedom generates greater freedom, as paradoxical as that may sound. You can certainly argue that speaking does not trample someone's else right to speak, except that it does if I can not speak because you are constantly speaking through your megaphone. Which is one reason, most communities have public nuisance and noise ordinances, because given the opportunity someone will inevitable do so.
Unlike you, I suppose, I like the basic idea of the "Fairness Doctrine". That is that one-sided presentations of controversial issues are not in the public interest.
Some people, as I think you do, think that this is a response to the rise of talk radio's demagogues, and it could well be. Of course, the democrats were against the repeal of this law before the rise of talk show demagogues, so it's not likely the only reason. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to believe these talk show demagogues have been instrumental in pushing the Republican political agenda. I'd say conservative, but I think most of them are only as conservative as the Republican party wants them to be. Of course, this argument is pointless, while it would be a small victory for the Democrats, the consequences on the political prospects of either party shouldn't matter to anyone outside of them, and thus this is not a compelling argument, any more than claiming that any particular rule in football discrimates against your team.
Beyodn that the most common argument against it, is that the implementation will be bad. That is pretty likely, it is the American government after all. But it seems to me there are reasonably good ways to implement the doctrine that do not involve heavy handed regulation. For instance, an alternate implementation of the doctrine might require that broadcast shows provide a minimal amount of time for opposing views to be aired, if requested, with a minimum of 1/12 of the show duration or the length of the rebuttal which is ever is lower (shows are free to air longer rebuttals if they wish).
The matching right-wing shows with left-wing shows is utter rubbish, and was never a part of the original Doctine which was in effect for almost 40 years from 1949 to 1987.
One of the reasons that the this might be a good idea is to combat the increasing ease with which people can isolate themselves (even unitentionally) from diversity of opinion. It is a theory that the isolating effect is driving the increasingly partisan politics of the United States.
Now, there is a very good reason for conservative (or more specifically Republican) partisan to fear the Fairness Doctrine, as it turns out the so-called "liberal media" has been doing a much better job of airing a diversity of opinion, it appears to be mostly conservative talk radio that has had an incredible derth of opposing viewpoints. As I mentioned earlier, a reasonable implementation of the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't force them off the air, but might break the facade of perfect conservatism that is so tireless built around them. This is certianly a very good reason for Republican partisans to fight against the Fairness Doctrine in every way possible.
Of course, the Fairness Doctrine debate is moot, it can't be implemented until 2009 at the earliest, unless some truly exceptional events take place. If the bill makes it's way to Bush, he'll veto it, just like Reagan did.
Ok, so you do acknowledge that a news show may be popular for reasons other than the job they do at reporting the news.
"A news show which does a lousy job of reporting the news is soon out of business" isn't quite right.
"A news show which does a [substancially worse job] of reporting the news [than it's competitors] is soon out of business" is better, I think.
I do know that I vastly prefer both the Canadian and British news media to the American one, so I wouldn't call the U.S. media excellent. Before passing any such judgement there really should be some objective measure of quality. It should be disturbing that audience testing indicated that watchers of the Daily Show had a greater understanding of the current events than watchers of the cable and network news shows. So, if the criteria was dissemination of information those shows definitely could be improved.
Of course, this is not at all unexpected. News shows aren't paid to inform people, they're paid to get people to watch.
So your theory is that, by definition, whichever news source is most popular is best.
Wait, so do you
1) Believe that absolute freedom is the ideal and we accept that weak will be dominated by the strong.
or
2) Believe some freedoms must be compromised to achieve the greatest net freedom for everyone? So we prevent the weak from being dominated the strong?
This has nothing to do with who's message I like or don't like and everything to do with the logical paradox of giving people the freedom to oppress others. Only by oppressing tyrants can you prevent them from oppressing others.
If the news media (which should, in theory, have a duty to inform the public) isn't informing the public, how is the public going to know what they aren't being told?
The supreme court had it right:
Say whatever you want, but you have to share your public resource with others to make sure the public, which might I remind you owns the radio frequency you are monopolizing, is served to the best extent possible.
Furthermore, I'm going to throw an issue that no one appears to have mentioned before:
Is it in the best interests of a society that it be polarized by a division of the media along ideological lines? Let's pretend we have conservative media, which only airs conservative viewpoints and liberal media, which only airs liberal viewpoints. Is this healthy for society? Or is this going to create a factional divide where moderation is disdained? I don't know the answer, but I know I inherently like the idea of having every group of extremists forced to give time to people they disagree with. It's very easy to get away with deception and trickery when you preach to the choir, and you lock all dissenting opinion out. It's another issue entirely when you grant (or have to grant) people who disagree with you the right to take the pulpit and say their piece.
Will it work in practice? Maybe, maybe not. But the idea itselfs seems good.