"Any time you give a biased, unfair broadcast, you silenced your victims. Censored them."
Return now to your worst enemy: the dictionary. Home of what you call "made up words". Look up "censor":
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. Also, "To examine and expurgate". Expurgate means: "To remove erroneous, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material from (a book, for example) before publication".
Your censorship criterion of "fairness" fits in between the word "erroneous" (according to someone's opinion) and "objectionable" (according to someone's ability to be outraged by differing views and opinions, as you are by Fox News).
It is technically impossible to "censor" anything merely by saying something that is objectionable (or "unfair" if you want). The objectionable (unfair) speaker can only be a victim of censorship, not a perpetrator. The term "censor" instead applies to the authority (in the definition) who purges the publication (broadcast) of the "objectionable" material.
The censorship does not happen when someone broadcasts something objectionable (unfair). It happens when the authority removes the objectionable content from the broadcast. You are equating the act of saying something objectionable with the act of censorship. If these were equal, Howard Stern would be a censor, not the censored.
Returning to the original quote of yours: ""Any time you give a biased, unfair broadcast, you silenced your victims. Censored them.". It is only correct to say "Any time you prevent a biased, unfair broadcast, you silenced your victims. Censored them." .
"Except that there is no oops. You are making up words so badly that you would have to have subhuman intelligence to be fooled."
Go to www.dictionary.com. That is where I found the "made-up words" of the definition of propaganda.
"This is truly amazing. You tried a sloppy, incredibly childish attempt to misquote something posted a single link away"
The misquote involved censoring stations into going to music. I said to silence instead of what you actually said: music. Sorry!
"It does not censor it. It insures that it's fair"
Look up the definition of censorship. If the government authority is silencing something that it does not consider to be fair, that fits the definition.
"FAIR has credibility and you, having caught yourself in a series of embarrassing lies and missteps, do not."
FAIR has some credibility, just as Limbaugh does. However, both are rather biased.
"Here is the FAIR archive. They break down stories by topic, region, and media outlet. There are sections for CBS (Dan Rather!), ABC, NBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, you name it."
Look in this archive, as I did even before you gave this link. Michael Moore? His name is found buried in 8 stories. None are critical of him. O'Reilly? He is in more than 40 stories. Most of them slam him. Many of them use cutsey Limbaugh-style insults or intentional mispellings of his name. No one credible does this. The systematic use of silly insults for media figures of only one side is strong evidence of FAIR bias.. Unless you think Limbaugh is credible?? Truly, FAIR's use of insult in its titles go well with the immature mindset of someone who would seriously use the word "feminazi". Here is a question for you: is it fair for FAIR to resort to playground insult language in its supposedly serious documents?
Now let us look in the archive for Dan Rather. There are more than 70 stories in FAIR's archives that mention him. Few are critical of Dan Rather. None insult him in the title. However, one of the articles in the Dan Rather list does insult Rush Limbaugh in the title. Even when they cover Rather, they leave him alone and bash Limbaugh isntead.
Let's look in FAIR's archive at another major media figure of the left, Al Franken. A flamboyant, impassioned, and often funny advocate of his causes. By now, he has logged many hours on the radio and has several political books over the years. What do you find on him in FAIR''s archive? A mere 10 stories. None of them bash him. Most of them, in fact, bash and/or insult Limbaugh and O'Reilly. A significant lack of criticism of major media figures of the left, and a proponderance of criticism of major media figures on the right is strong evidence of FAIR's bias.
"unless you can point to something specific that's dishonest that FAIR didn't cover, you prove nothing."
I did previously point to specific "FAIR vs Rush" arguments in which FAIR was caught lying instead of their "partner in biased partisan bashing", Rush Limbaugh.
"Conservatives are have a bigger propaganda apparatus; they are therefore a bigger subject for any watchdog."
This is quite debatable, actually, and ignores the fact that FAIR engaged in the same sort of biased bashing when conservative opinion apparatus was much smaller (pre-Fox News).
"Will AtariAmarok apologize, or offer any explanation for this latest shockingly blatant lie?"
I will apologize only when I lie. I will not apologize for having a different opinion for you, or for knowing something you do not. I will not apologize for respecting the basic rights of those on the Left and Right to express opinions in the media.
A lie of mine? Here is the one. I said you earlier stated that you would rather radio go silent than air uncensored news and opinion. It was a misquote. You really said that you would have radio go to music, not silence. My mistake. Call it a lie if you want. Sorry!
"Vain attempt to disavow own biases: check."
Looking for any sort of quote where you criticize left-wing media at all.
"Another foolish attempt to misquote me: check."
Where is the link to the racist marching order by Karl Rove?
"The audience elects the government. You already like government censorship in other ways, clearly you believe they can handle it."
Once again, you ignore the First Amendment, which reserve free speech rights for the people that were specifically to be protected from being censored by the elected government.
"a cozy face on letting television and radio stations censor their political opponents"
A television station is totally incapable of censoring through t
"No, you want broadcasters to be able to censor or treat unfairly whatever they want"
It is impossible to censor by saying what you want.
"If TV or radio is biased, you can do nothing"
You can do more in the "post Fairness doctrine" era. On the radio, there are a lot more local call-in shows both left, right, and nonpartisan. There are a lot more stations with such talk shows. The same is true of television. Are you asserting that under the "fairness doctrine", the show "60 Minutes" was really "120 Minutes" as they gave an hour for Mike Wallace's targets to fight back? There is also public access cable also lets anyone "talk back".
It is very obvious that there is a lot more "talking back" to TV and radio being aired now than under the fairness doctrine.
"There is propaganda on TV. And you are happy."
Yes. Substitute the actual meaning of the word into the sentence, and it reads "There is material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause on TV. And you are happy." Yes, I welcome the media being used for opinion and discussion of important issues.
"Another lie, from a shameless, prolific, abundantly proven liar"
Your opinion about the war is one shared by half, disputed by half. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be left to free and open debate.
"There you go again, like a sleazy lawyer, trying to weasel out of what propaganda means. What is the definition of "is", AtariAmarok?"
The actual dictionary reference is in another recent message. You shot your mouth off before reading....oops.
"This is a blatant lie. I have never said this"
You did state that you would rather have stations go silent than broadcast "propaganda". Your quote: "It insures that it's fair. if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine", found here: click this!.
I did say "music" not "silent", sorry. In this argument, it means the same thing: the station has been gagged from doing anything issues-related.
"No, this is pretty obvious. The rule requires you to be fair, not unfair"
Pretty dangerous when the government gags people who say something that the government does not think is "fair". There was an American Revolution against things like this.
"In other words, you like the corrupt system of letting the government censor people "
I oppose such censorship, and you repeatedly call for it.
On TV and Radio, you are not having a discussion. You are broadcasting."
The same is true if you have a newspaper.
"No one can answer you."
Something else very far from the truth. You can "answer" in other media. You can "answer" directly to them. They may or may not read your letter over the air (just like a newspaper's letter page).
"They If you don't treat an issue fairly, you are censoring those who you treat unfairly."
It is impossible to censor by expressing an opinion.
"The government is appointed by the people"
So? Refer to the Constitution (a dirty word for you) to see where people have realized for hundreds of years that it is necessary to place limits on the abusive power of government. There's a "Bill of Rights" there. There is not a blank page with a line saying "the government, appointed by the people, would never abuse anyone's rights and knows what is fair for everyone.".
"The people understood the obvious reasons for needing broadcasters to be fair"
That is why the "fairness doctrine" which actually made broadcasters less fair went away. The "doctrine" is rather unpopular. The groundswell of opposition to bring it back would be staggering as you would anger the politically aware and active of all sides who would "want their NPR!" and "want their Rush!".
"Any time you give a biased, unfair broadcast, you silenced your victims. Censored them."
No, you have done nothing except present an opinion.
Since you use the term "propaganda" for political opinion you do not like, I have made the accurate substitution:
' The important thing for him is that, if it's documenting conservative [expression of information], it has to be a liberal pressure group. '
It is not merely "documenting" conservative expression of information: it slams it all the time. They do not slam liberal expression of information. This slamming of one side and not the other is clear evidence of bias.
He does not provide proof
I provided information on the leader of FAIR's other work as a left-wing activist. You probably do not even know his name. I'd love to provide a link to a place in FAIR's site criticizing a Limbaugh of the left (such as Michael Moore), but such links do not exist.
if you criticize a conservative broadcaster your are a liberal or a liberal group.
I criticize Rush quite happily, but I also criticize the left-wing blowhards. It is the bashing of just one side that shows that someone is on the other.
but show him anything concrete, even a single piece of work from FAIR
I have pointed out specific examples of where FAIR got it wrong in their very old argument with Rush Limbaugh (alongside the ones that FAIR got right).
' Actually, no. Rush is widely known to be a conservative commentator. In fact, at this point, he has been the subject of much scrutiny and has been widely discredited and disgraced. I can provide links, of course. '
The same is true of FAIR (substitute "activist group" for commentator, and "liberal" for "conservative.") As for links, I'm still waiting for the link to Karl Rove's racist marching orders you mentioned earlier
"You have advocated control as well. You just like your control to allow conservative [expression of information"
This is a gross misquote. I have repeatedly supported allowing liberal expression of information. I have mentioned Al Franken as a main example. The fact is that I support freedom of expression for both political sides.
"whereas I believe broadcasters should be fair"
The government's definition of "fair", and not the audience's. Which means that what you want is not fair at all.
and not censor any viewpoint they don't agree with."
These broadcasters are incapable of censorship. Anything they do on their own channel/etc is an expression of free speech.
"Propaganda on TV is for China, not the United States."
The opposite is true. China tightly controls political information on TV. This is what you want for the US.
"AtariAmarok believes that newspapers were as powerful as televison."
No, I do not. However, I oppose the censorship of either. I do not falsely label expression on either side as "propaganda" and repeatedly call for a law that will silence it. Unlike you, I am not afraid of what Fox News, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, or Dan Rather have to say.
"He still claims not to understand the difference."
They are in the same that both should be allowed freedom of expression. Without the censorship you
"That's my question for you, actually. Why are you so afraid of fairness? "
Fairness is for the viewer to decide.
What was wrong with the country when [free political expression] on TV was against the rules?
That question speaks for itself.
"That reminds me? [off-topic insulting babble, in keeping with a bin Laden fixation]"
"I guess we are once again faced with the classic question about you: [more insulting babble]"
Any off-topic diversion to keep you from defending your pro-censorship views.
There is a more low-tech solution available as well. There's this guy who advertises in the back of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine who will blur anyone's face for a fee.
"Well... if women in Sims 2 are allowed to have more than one child, then maybe the Chinese people will start getting ideas"
Or, if Chinese couples who want more than one child are allowed by the government to have as many Sim children as they want, this could defuse the issue.
From the article: "Now, the new governor has removed all video games from the MO prison system. From the AP story: "Blunt, a Republican who took office"
How can a story about a politician doing something in office fit with your statement "Politics have nothing to do with this story at all" ? If this story has nothing to do with politics, then no story does. Let us next go to the dictionary definition of politics: "The art or science of government or governing". Hmmm. Do you think that prison policy by the Missouri government might count as "governing"? Could be....
"TV and radio were deregulated because people wanted to put propaganda on them."
If, by propaganda, you mean (as you always do) diverse and differing opinions, yes. Political censorship was removed from TV and radio for this purpose.
You admitted elsewhere that you'd rather have music than have radio stations air political opinion that you do not like and is not fettered by government control.
If anything is "propaganda", it is the content that stations are forced to air under the Fairness Doctrine because "the government says it is fair.".
"Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop."
Just what we need: more games designed for approval by committees of the type that think "Elektra will be a great hit movie!", and fewer games designed for game-players.
"Simple. Not everybody gets a TV or radio station. America decided way back when these things were invented that those few that do have a responsibility to the rest"
What better way to do this than to have them serve the public by providing content the public wants (the current situation), as opposed to content the government wants ("fairness doctrine" government censorship and control)?
"On TV or radio, if you discuss one side of an issue without being fair to other points of view, you are censoring..."
Nothing is further from the truth. If you discuss something, that is your free speech. You are not "Censoring" by excercising that right.
"Only a few people can control the mass media, they have to be fair when they discuss politics, or not discuss it at all."
I'd rather have free political discussion rather than have it censored ("not at all") because some government inquisitor said it was not fair.
So, you don't want the "Fairness Doctrine" to apply to them anymore?
"Fox News wants to keep real dissenting opinions off the air. That is censorship."
I'd like to see a quote or a link to show this. Where has Fox News said or tried to keep CNN, CBS, or others from broadcasting/cabling what they want? Can you show me Fox News trying to have the government meddle with the content of and/or silence CNN, CBS, local TV news, ABC, etc? If this is true, it is censorship.
"This applies to everybody who has the privilege of using the limited, very powerful resources of the broadcast spectrum"
You were talking about Fox News. Are you aware of the fact that they make little use of the broadcast spectrum? Yes, there is the Fox Network, and its affiliates, but they only show a little bit of cable's Fox News Channel, if at all.
"Not everyone can have their own cable, TV or radio station. In fact, hardly anyone can. So we put limits on what those few people who do have that privilege are allowed to do"
Using this bizarre pro-censorship logic, we should realize that since poor people can't afford to have a newspaper, we should censor the hell out of them too. Can't have them utter political opinions we do not like, can't we?
"Hence, the doctrine was eliminated by conservatives to silence political opposition on the "channels" they control."
Name me one conservative-controlled channel from the time of the elimination of the Doctrine.
"Evidence is provided to show you are lying, by a major, credible media watchdog"
You did not do this. Instead, you presented something from a partisan political pressure group.
"You make up libels against them"
Calling FAIR left-wing is no more libelious than calling Rush Limbaugh right-wing.
"You claim I am trying to censor some people"
You repeatedly call for government control of political content of broadcasters and cable news.
"You claim that the Fairness Doctrine is about censorship, when all it does is protect your political viewpoints by making sure they are always represented."
"You claim that mass media is meaningless and that attempts to regulate television are the same as attempts to regulate your personal speech"
It is meaningless. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the freedom of the newspapers/etc of the 1790s, which were at least as powerful then as what you call "mass media" of today. Why are you so afraid of political expression?
Your claim is false (dare we say a "lie"?)
"Your entire thread is a tantrum"
At least I don't blow my stack and babble about Bin Laden:)
Why are you so afraid of political expression? Why must those who do not have your political views be censored?
"I advocate bringing Fairness back. That means all sides would have to be fair to their opponents views on the air. Including (especially) Air America"
Whether Air America is fair is something to be determined by Al Franken, Janine Gerafalo, and the listeners, It should not be up to the government.
You have so far reserved the term for conservative political opinion that you happen to not like.
"Bad guys with guns that would never have been in power without propaganda"
And the allies would not have overthrown them without anti-Nazi political expression ("propaganda").
"Goebbles is very quotable; Fox News talking heads love to reference him"
So that is the real reason you hate Fox News. They are Nazis???
"Fox News is a source of propaganda for this administration. That's a well-documented fact"
That, and the rest of your statement about Fox News, is a very disputed opinion. We and others could argue about it for a long time, but that would only prove my point. I don't want the government to censor anyone because in your opinion they are bad.
"(You advocate having AM radio stations replace Limbaugh with music) In your imagination. I advocate that they treat political subjects with fairness, and give equal time to all sides of an issue."
The "fairness" is the government elite's definition of fairness, not the people's. Radio stations would rather play music than have what you want (government censorship of content). Right now, they get to answer to the listeners about what is fair or not.
"The Doctrine is intended to apply to Radio and TV."
A correction: it is/was intended to apply to broadcast radio and TV. This is an important distinction: satellite radio and cable TV were never affected by it.
"All it [Fairness Doctrine] says is that even TV and radio owners can't silence their political opponents"
Without the Fairness Doctrine, they do not censor political opponents already. Why change it?
Without the Fairness Doctrine, the listeners and viewers get to determine what is fair. With it, government elites determine this.
"The Bill of Rights doesn't include some idea to censor people for libeling, slandering, cursing, threateting the president, making false advertising, or telling people how to circumvent copy protection, either"
So this means it is OK for the government to censor political content just because you do not like it?
"You don't want freedom of the press"
Yes, I do. Even if the press falls under the meaningless term "mass media". Let Fox, CNN, etc express political views without the government doing what you want and censoring them.
" notice you're afraid to respond to this point"
The porn point is entirely off topic, and is a diversionary tactic.
"It does not censor it. It insures that it's fair"
If you try to present or publish something, and the government comes in and says "no, you can't say this. You must say this because I think it is "fair"", that is certainly nothing but censorship.
"if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine"
As long as it wipes out Fox News, you are happy, right? As long as Rush Limbaugh is replaced with Montovani, and NPR news radio is replaced with Mahler, it is OK?
"(Do you have any specifics of altered TV broadcast content?) I provided it already. The FAIR document"
Which one? The Fox News one had nothing to do with broadcast.
"I forgot, I'm not you. I don't make things up and pretend you said or did them"
You have devoted entire paragraphs to off-topic and insulting Bin Laden babble. Indeed, you do this.
The most telling quote lately is "It insures that it's fair. if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine"... to you, mass censorship of media is fine. A big silence rather than have people express their opinion in an unfettered fashion, without having to worry if it is "fair" to government censors.
"Link to the post where I said this. Oh wait, you can't, because you're a liar. You like to make things up and pretend people said them."
Earlier, you said Fox mislead people into war, and was profiteering from the deaths of our troops. Those were not your exact words, but this is a fair paraphrasing. The reason I cannot link to your post is because I could not find it in the small recent list of posts that Slashdot shows. This statement about Fox is an opinion, not a fact.
"I do not want to bar them from cable. I want them to stay on! I just want them to stop censoring their political opposition"
You mean Fox News would have to add a few token liberals? Oh wait, they already did! Perhaps this doctrine you want would make no difference. That is my hope. Not because I approve of Fox only having token liberals, but because I believe that their content (and everyone else's) is for them to determine, and not the government.
"You know what I want, though? I want you to stop [fake made-up babbling]"
"I advocate restoring the Fairness Doctrine. This is precisely the opposite of what you are saying"
It is irrelevant Constitutionally. The Bill of Rights does not include some idea to censor people if they reach "too big" of an audience.
" believe what George Bush believes, which is that Television and Radio are different from political speech"
Do you believe him on everything?
"The lucky few that can have responsibilities to the American people"
Yes. These responsibilities are served when they broadcast what the public wants. As determined by the public, not the government.
"You, however, are a kind of radical broadcast-policy anarchist"
Since when is "Freedom of the press" so radical?
"(You have focused strongly on demanding the latter.)... This, ladies and gentlement, is a "clever" debating trick called"
It is central to the discussion that you have supported censoring of political views (so-called "propaganda") you do not agree with.
"Meanwhile, it was conservatives ending the Fairness Doctrine that allowed Television broadcasters to silence dissent"
Do you have any specifics of altered TV broadcast content?
"The Fairness Doctrine protects political speech by making sure it gets on the air when its opposition does"
It censors it. Look, again, at the facts. Under the Doctrine, radio stations chose to air almost no political content at all rather than have the government control it.
Slashdot Mirror
Return now to your worst enemy: the dictionary. Home of what you call "made up words". Look up "censor":
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. Also, "To examine and expurgate". Expurgate means: "To remove erroneous, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material from (a book, for example) before publication".
Your censorship criterion of "fairness" fits in between the word "erroneous" (according to someone's opinion) and "objectionable" (according to someone's ability to be outraged by differing views and opinions, as you are by Fox News).
It is technically impossible to "censor" anything merely by saying something that is objectionable (or "unfair" if you want). The objectionable (unfair) speaker can only be a victim of censorship, not a perpetrator. The term "censor" instead applies to the authority (in the definition) who purges the publication (broadcast) of the "objectionable" material.
The censorship does not happen when someone broadcasts something objectionable (unfair). It happens when the authority removes the objectionable content from the broadcast. You are equating the act of saying something objectionable with the act of censorship. If these were equal, Howard Stern would be a censor, not the censored.
Returning to the original quote of yours: ""Any time you give a biased, unfair broadcast, you silenced your victims. Censored them.". It is only correct to say "Any time you prevent a biased, unfair broadcast, you silenced your victims. Censored them." .
Go to www.dictionary.com. That is where I found the "made-up words" of the definition of propaganda.
"This is truly amazing. You tried a sloppy, incredibly childish attempt to misquote something posted a single link away"
The misquote involved censoring stations into going to music. I said to silence instead of what you actually said: music. Sorry!
"It does not censor it. It insures that it's fair"
Look up the definition of censorship. If the government authority is silencing something that it does not consider to be fair, that fits the definition.
FAIR has some credibility, just as Limbaugh does. However, both are rather biased.
"Here is the FAIR archive. They break down stories by topic, region, and media outlet. There are sections for CBS (Dan Rather!), ABC, NBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, you name it."
Look in this archive, as I did even before you gave this link. Michael Moore? His name is found buried in 8 stories. None are critical of him. O'Reilly? He is in more than 40 stories. Most of them slam him. Many of them use cutsey Limbaugh-style insults or intentional mispellings of his name. No one credible does this. The systematic use of silly insults for media figures of only one side is strong evidence of FAIR bias.. Unless you think Limbaugh is credible?? Truly, FAIR's use of insult in its titles go well with the immature mindset of someone who would seriously use the word "feminazi". Here is a question for you: is it fair for FAIR to resort to playground insult language in its supposedly serious documents?
Now let us look in the archive for Dan Rather. There are more than 70 stories in FAIR's archives that mention him. Few are critical of Dan Rather. None insult him in the title. However, one of the articles in the Dan Rather list does insult Rush Limbaugh in the title. Even when they cover Rather, they leave him alone and bash Limbaugh isntead.
Let's look in FAIR's archive at another major media figure of the left, Al Franken. A flamboyant, impassioned, and often funny advocate of his causes. By now, he has logged many hours on the radio and has several political books over the years. What do you find on him in FAIR''s archive? A mere 10 stories. None of them bash him. Most of them, in fact, bash and/or insult Limbaugh and O'Reilly. A significant lack of criticism of major media figures of the left, and a proponderance of criticism of major media figures on the right is strong evidence of FAIR's bias.
"unless you can point to something specific that's dishonest that FAIR didn't cover, you prove nothing."
I did previously point to specific "FAIR vs Rush" arguments in which FAIR was caught lying instead of their "partner in biased partisan bashing", Rush Limbaugh.
"Conservatives are have a bigger propaganda apparatus; they are therefore a bigger subject for any watchdog."
This is quite debatable, actually, and ignores the fact that FAIR engaged in the same sort of biased bashing when conservative opinion apparatus was much smaller (pre-Fox News).
"Will AtariAmarok apologize, or offer any explanation for this latest shockingly blatant lie?"
I will apologize only when I lie. I will not apologize for having a different opinion for you, or for knowing something you do not. I will not apologize for respecting the basic rights of those on the Left and Right to express opinions in the media.
A lie of mine? Here is the one. I said you earlier stated that you would rather radio go silent than air uncensored news and opinion. It was a misquote. You really said that you would have radio go to music, not silence. My mistake. Call it a lie if you want. Sorry!
"Vain attempt to disavow own biases: check."
Looking for any sort of quote where you criticize left-wing media at all.
"Another foolish attempt to misquote me: check."
Where is the link to the racist marching order by Karl Rove?
"The audience elects the government. You already like government censorship in other ways, clearly you believe they can handle it."
Once again, you ignore the First Amendment, which reserve free speech rights for the people that were specifically to be protected from being censored by the elected government.
"a cozy face on letting television and radio stations censor their political opponents"
A television station is totally incapable of censoring through t
It is impossible to censor by saying what you want.
"If TV or radio is biased, you can do nothing"
You can do more in the "post Fairness doctrine" era. On the radio, there are a lot more local call-in shows both left, right, and nonpartisan. There are a lot more stations with such talk shows. The same is true of television. Are you asserting that under the "fairness doctrine", the show "60 Minutes" was really "120 Minutes" as they gave an hour for Mike Wallace's targets to fight back? There is also public access cable also lets anyone "talk back".
It is very obvious that there is a lot more "talking back" to TV and radio being aired now than under the fairness doctrine.
"There is propaganda on TV. And you are happy."
Yes. Substitute the actual meaning of the word into the sentence, and it reads "There is material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause on TV. And you are happy." Yes, I welcome the media being used for opinion and discussion of important issues.
"Another lie, from a shameless, prolific, abundantly proven liar"
Your opinion about the war is one shared by half, disputed by half. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be left to free and open debate.
Is that a "Fox News Channel" in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
The actual dictionary reference is in another recent message. You shot your mouth off before reading....oops.
"This is a blatant lie. I have never said this"
You did state that you would rather have stations go silent than broadcast "propaganda". Your quote: "It insures that it's fair. if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine", found here: click this!. I did say "music" not "silent", sorry. In this argument, it means the same thing: the station has been gagged from doing anything issues-related.
"No, this is pretty obvious. The rule requires you to be fair, not unfair"
Pretty dangerous when the government gags people who say something that the government does not think is "fair". There was an American Revolution against things like this.
I oppose such censorship, and you repeatedly call for it.
On TV and Radio, you are not having a discussion. You are broadcasting."
The same is true if you have a newspaper.
"No one can answer you."
Something else very far from the truth. You can "answer" in other media. You can "answer" directly to them. They may or may not read your letter over the air (just like a newspaper's letter page).
"They If you don't treat an issue fairly, you are censoring those who you treat unfairly."
It is impossible to censor by expressing an opinion.
"The government is appointed by the people"
So? Refer to the Constitution (a dirty word for you) to see where people have realized for hundreds of years that it is necessary to place limits on the abusive power of government. There's a "Bill of Rights" there. There is not a blank page with a line saying "the government, appointed by the people, would never abuse anyone's rights and knows what is fair for everyone.".
"The people understood the obvious reasons for needing broadcasters to be fair"
That is why the "fairness doctrine" which actually made broadcasters less fair went away. The "doctrine" is rather unpopular. The groundswell of opposition to bring it back would be staggering as you would anger the politically aware and active of all sides who would "want their NPR!" and "want their Rush!".
"Any time you give a biased, unfair broadcast, you silenced your victims. Censored them."
No, you have done nothing except present an opinion.
That is just what they wanted the casual mercenary to think. Muahahah.....
' The important thing for him is that, if it's documenting conservative [expression of information], it has to be a liberal pressure group. '
It is not merely "documenting" conservative expression of information: it slams it all the time. They do not slam liberal expression of information. This slamming of one side and not the other is clear evidence of bias.
He does not provide proof
I provided information on the leader of FAIR's other work as a left-wing activist. You probably do not even know his name. I'd love to provide a link to a place in FAIR's site criticizing a Limbaugh of the left (such as Michael Moore), but such links do not exist.
if you criticize a conservative broadcaster your are a liberal or a liberal group.
I criticize Rush quite happily, but I also criticize the left-wing blowhards. It is the bashing of just one side that shows that someone is on the other.
but show him anything concrete, even a single piece of work from FAIR
I have pointed out specific examples of where FAIR got it wrong in their very old argument with Rush Limbaugh (alongside the ones that FAIR got right).
' Actually, no. Rush is widely known to be a conservative commentator. In fact, at this point, he has been the subject of much scrutiny and has been widely discredited and disgraced. I can provide links, of course. '
The same is true of FAIR (substitute "activist group" for commentator, and "liberal" for "conservative.") As for links, I'm still waiting for the link to Karl Rove's racist marching orders you mentioned earlier
"You have advocated control as well. You just like your control to allow conservative [expression of information"
This is a gross misquote. I have repeatedly supported allowing liberal expression of information. I have mentioned Al Franken as a main example. The fact is that I support freedom of expression for both political sides.
"whereas I believe broadcasters should be fair"
The government's definition of "fair", and not the audience's. Which means that what you want is not fair at all. and not censor any viewpoint they don't agree with."
These broadcasters are incapable of censorship. Anything they do on their own channel/etc is an expression of free speech.
"Propaganda on TV is for China, not the United States."
The opposite is true. China tightly controls political information on TV. This is what you want for the US.
"AtariAmarok believes that newspapers were as powerful as televison." No, I do not. However, I oppose the censorship of either. I do not falsely label expression on either side as "propaganda" and repeatedly call for a law that will silence it. Unlike you, I am not afraid of what Fox News, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, or Dan Rather have to say.
"He still claims not to understand the difference."
They are in the same that both should be allowed freedom of expression. Without the censorship you
"That's my question for you, actually. Why are you so afraid of fairness? "
Fairness is for the viewer to decide.
What was wrong with the country when [free political expression] on TV was against the rules?
That question speaks for itself.
"That reminds me? [off-topic insulting babble, in keeping with a bin Laden fixation]"
"I guess we are once again faced with the classic question about you: [more insulting babble]"
Any off-topic diversion to keep you from defending your pro-censorship views.
There is a more low-tech solution available as well. There's this guy who advertises in the back of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine who will blur anyone's face for a fee.
Or, if Chinese couples who want more than one child are allowed by the government to have as many Sim children as they want, this could defuse the issue.
How can a story about a politician doing something in office fit with your statement "Politics have nothing to do with this story at all" ? If this story has nothing to do with politics, then no story does. Let us next go to the dictionary definition of politics: "The art or science of government or governing". Hmmm. Do you think that prison policy by the Missouri government might count as "governing"? Could be....
Looking for a new bill co-signed by State Legislator Doobie.
If, by propaganda, you mean (as you always do) diverse and differing opinions, yes. Political censorship was removed from TV and radio for this purpose.
You admitted elsewhere that you'd rather have music than have radio stations air political opinion that you do not like and is not fettered by government control.
If anything is "propaganda", it is the content that stations are forced to air under the Fairness Doctrine because "the government says it is fair.".
Don't knock it. My driveway pavement and lawn furniture are made of compressed and melted Atari 2600 "ET" game carts.
Just what we need: more games designed for approval by committees of the type that think "Elektra will be a great hit movie!", and fewer games designed for game-players.
What better way to do this than to have them serve the public by providing content the public wants (the current situation), as opposed to content the government wants ("fairness doctrine" government censorship and control)?
"On TV or radio, if you discuss one side of an issue without being fair to other points of view, you are censoring..."
Nothing is further from the truth. If you discuss something, that is your free speech. You are not "Censoring" by excercising that right.
"Only a few people can control the mass media, they have to be fair when they discuss politics, or not discuss it at all."
I'd rather have free political discussion rather than have it censored ("not at all") because some government inquisitor said it was not fair.
So, you don't want the "Fairness Doctrine" to apply to them anymore?
"Fox News wants to keep real dissenting opinions off the air. That is censorship."
I'd like to see a quote or a link to show this. Where has Fox News said or tried to keep CNN, CBS, or others from broadcasting/cabling what they want? Can you show me Fox News trying to have the government meddle with the content of and/or silence CNN, CBS, local TV news, ABC, etc? If this is true, it is censorship.
"This applies to everybody who has the privilege of using the limited, very powerful resources of the broadcast spectrum"
You were talking about Fox News. Are you aware of the fact that they make little use of the broadcast spectrum? Yes, there is the Fox Network, and its affiliates, but they only show a little bit of cable's Fox News Channel, if at all.
Using this bizarre pro-censorship logic, we should realize that since poor people can't afford to have a newspaper, we should censor the hell out of them too. Can't have them utter political opinions we do not like, can't we?
"Hence, the doctrine was eliminated by conservatives to silence political opposition on the "channels" they control."
Name me one conservative-controlled channel from the time of the elimination of the Doctrine.
You did not do this. Instead, you presented something from a partisan political pressure group.
"You make up libels against them"
Calling FAIR left-wing is no more libelious than calling Rush Limbaugh right-wing.
"You claim I am trying to censor some people"
You repeatedly call for government control of political content of broadcasters and cable news.
"You claim that the Fairness Doctrine is about censorship, when all it does is protect your political viewpoints by making sure they are always represented."
"You claim that mass media is meaningless and that attempts to regulate television are the same as attempts to regulate your personal speech"
It is meaningless. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the freedom of the newspapers/etc of the 1790s, which were at least as powerful then as what you call "mass media" of today. Why are you so afraid of political expression?
Your claim is false (dare we say a "lie"?)
"Your entire thread is a tantrum"
At least I don't blow my stack and babble about Bin Laden :)
Why are you so afraid of political expression? Why must those who do not have your political views be censored?
Whether Air America is fair is something to be determined by Al Franken, Janine Gerafalo, and the listeners, It should not be up to the government.
You have so far reserved the term for conservative political opinion that you happen to not like.
"Bad guys with guns that would never have been in power without propaganda"
And the allies would not have overthrown them without anti-Nazi political expression ("propaganda").
"Goebbles is very quotable; Fox News talking heads love to reference him"
So that is the real reason you hate Fox News. They are Nazis???
"Fox News is a source of propaganda for this administration. That's a well-documented fact"
That, and the rest of your statement about Fox News, is a very disputed opinion. We and others could argue about it for a long time, but that would only prove my point. I don't want the government to censor anyone because in your opinion they are bad.
"(You advocate having AM radio stations replace Limbaugh with music) In your imagination. I advocate that they treat political subjects with fairness, and give equal time to all sides of an issue."
The "fairness" is the government elite's definition of fairness, not the people's. Radio stations would rather play music than have what you want (government censorship of content). Right now, they get to answer to the listeners about what is fair or not.
"The Doctrine is intended to apply to Radio and TV."
A correction: it is/was intended to apply to broadcast radio and TV. This is an important distinction: satellite radio and cable TV were never affected by it.
"All it [Fairness Doctrine] says is that even TV and radio owners can't silence their political opponents"
Without the Fairness Doctrine, they do not censor political opponents already. Why change it? Without the Fairness Doctrine, the listeners and viewers get to determine what is fair. With it, government elites determine this.
So this means it is OK for the government to censor political content just because you do not like it?
"You don't want freedom of the press"
Yes, I do. Even if the press falls under the meaningless term "mass media". Let Fox, CNN, etc express political views without the government doing what you want and censoring them.
" notice you're afraid to respond to this point"
The porn point is entirely off topic, and is a diversionary tactic.
"It does not censor it. It insures that it's fair"
If you try to present or publish something, and the government comes in and says "no, you can't say this. You must say this because I think it is "fair"", that is certainly nothing but censorship.
"if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine"
As long as it wipes out Fox News, you are happy, right? As long as Rush Limbaugh is replaced with Montovani, and NPR news radio is replaced with Mahler, it is OK?
"(Do you have any specifics of altered TV broadcast content?) I provided it already. The FAIR document"
Which one? The Fox News one had nothing to do with broadcast.
"I forgot, I'm not you. I don't make things up and pretend you said or did them"
You have devoted entire paragraphs to off-topic and insulting Bin Laden babble. Indeed, you do this.
The most telling quote lately is "It insures that it's fair. if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine"... to you, mass censorship of media is fine. A big silence rather than have people express their opinion in an unfettered fashion, without having to worry if it is "fair" to government censors.
Earlier, you said Fox mislead people into war, and was profiteering from the deaths of our troops. Those were not your exact words, but this is a fair paraphrasing. The reason I cannot link to your post is because I could not find it in the small recent list of posts that Slashdot shows. This statement about Fox is an opinion, not a fact.
"I do not want to bar them from cable. I want them to stay on! I just want them to stop censoring their political opposition"
You mean Fox News would have to add a few token liberals? Oh wait, they already did! Perhaps this doctrine you want would make no difference. That is my hope. Not because I approve of Fox only having token liberals, but because I believe that their content (and everyone else's) is for them to determine, and not the government.
"You know what I want, though? I want you to stop [fake made-up babbling]"
You are "on the nut" again.
It is irrelevant Constitutionally. The Bill of Rights does not include some idea to censor people if they reach "too big" of an audience.
" believe what George Bush believes, which is that Television and Radio are different from political speech"
Do you believe him on everything?
"The lucky few that can have responsibilities to the American people"
Yes. These responsibilities are served when they broadcast what the public wants. As determined by the public, not the government.
"You, however, are a kind of radical broadcast-policy anarchist"
Since when is "Freedom of the press" so radical?
"(You have focused strongly on demanding the latter.)... This, ladies and gentlement, is a "clever" debating trick called"
It is central to the discussion that you have supported censoring of political views (so-called "propaganda") you do not agree with.
"Meanwhile, it was conservatives ending the Fairness Doctrine that allowed Television broadcasters to silence dissent"
Do you have any specifics of altered TV broadcast content?
"The Fairness Doctrine protects political speech by making sure it gets on the air when its opposition does"
It censors it. Look, again, at the facts. Under the Doctrine, radio stations chose to air almost no political content at all rather than have the government control it.