So this means it is OK for the government to censor political content just because you do not like it?
I can't tell for sure, but now it looks like you're using your clipboard to repeat your lies. I know I can use mine to answer this.
"The Fairness Doctrine protects political speech, by making sure it gets on the air when its opposition does, or that, if not, it's discussed in the newspapers, internet, and living rooms, like it always was."
The porn point is entirely off topic, and is a diversionary tactic.
It is at the very heart of the topic, and you know it. One minute you don't accept any censorship. Next minute you want to censor things. This is the very definition of on-topic, and you are afraid to answer it because you are either a knowing hypocrite or a coward.
If you really believe putting porn on TV without labeling it is OK, just say so.
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.
The government cannot do anything else.
We can't all have television stations without rules, because the signals will overlap. So the government makes rules, divides things up, and says who can broadcast and who can't. By your absurd and illegal definition, they are already "censoring" you the second the FCC regulates anything.
It is therefore very obvious for them to impose rules on the privileged few who get to broadcast, and they do it every day.
The only diversionary tactic is you refusing to admit you are a hypocrite about it, and support the rules only when they do not apply to your love of televised propaganda.
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?
Repeating this baseless lie seems to be your biggest idea.
At this point, because when you have been completely rebutted all you know how to do is repeat what we've already demonstrated is wrong, I will merely supply another self-quote:
"I have never advocated partial censorship; my position on the First Amendment is on solid ground with both sides of the supreme court and a decades-long bipartisan succession of American executives; I am not a liberal, neither is advocating the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine inherently liberal or indeed partisan in any way..."
You cannot point to any place that I have advocated partial censorship. All I have ever advocated is fairness, and this frightens you, so you go into slander mode. Your credibility, your intellectual dignity makes an excellent sacrifice to the cause... you hope.
Which one? The Fox News one had nothing to do with broadcast.
Be more clear about what you want, and I will supply it.
You have devoted entire paragraphs to off-topic and insulting Bin Laden babble.
No sir, most definitely on-topic.
You believe you can make up any accusation you like and refuse to justify it. I am merely playing by your rules. By criticizing this, you are criticizing yourself. Babble does describe what you do, to an extent.
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.
Oh, I see, you've learned a new trick: selectively quoting. I am starting to see why you are so desperate to slander fairness in broadcasting. Perhaps with this latest achievement, you may have enough tricks in your repertoire to be considered something of a junior propagandist yourself. Let's read the rest of the quote.
Maybe you will answer it next time, instead of being sc
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.
No. I never suggested Fox personally profiteers.
Their biased pro-war coverage is well documented.
You mean Fox News would have to add a few token liberals? Oh wait, they already did!
No, their content should be fair. The government already regulates them. They just started giving their propaganda a pass.
"On the nut," coming a guy who believes facts are whatever he says they are, invents outrageous libels and refuses to give even a link to back it up, who likes porn on TV, and who is either against putting warning labels on it or is an avowed hypocrite, and who is a serial liar about immediately preceding posts.
Kind of like Christopher Walken in King of New York. Sells drugs by night, builds a children's hospital by day. He even has a "great" speech about it. Does it sound goofy and incoherent? Yeah, it is.
Monopolies are bad for the economy. They create inefficiencies that propagate into every aspect of our lives and result in traditional economic malaise: substandard goods and services at higher prices, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, stalled progress.
To have the man at the head of the monopoly put on his King's hat and say "I am magnanimous today" makes you feel kind of like an asshole, doesn't it?
Let alone when one of his lackey-wannabes says "Who is as generous as the King?"
I don't have a problem with people discriminating against black people...as long as it doesn't prevent them from getting a job, opening a bank account, getting a loan, or anything that gets in the way of anyone's day-to-day life...it's fine.
Obviously that's the point. There are many times the public wants something that's wrong. Maybe they want to deny black people public education. The public may want it, but if elected I presume you would not support it regardless?
Civil rights are not the same as your advocating a "fairness doctrine". Not in the same ballpark, and carely even the same game.
You were the making the bogus argument: "it's what the people want." You know what? You seem smart enough to know that's dishonest justification. The people want a free Mercedez Benz.
You'd much rather talk about what the people want than what is right.
Here, you try to make the same assumpton.
No, I don't.
Notice I did not say "any other conservative" because I did not think you were one, or at least would admit to it, nor does it matter. Pinning labels to try to distract and discredit is your job, apparently. Calling someone a hypocrite for doing it right after you have done it... Are you trying to win some kind of hypocrite award?
As you are probably more aware by the moment, upping the ante like this only makes you look foolish.
Now, let's sum up your track record, shall we?
I have never advocated partial censorship; my position on the First Amendment is on solid ground with both sides of the supreme court and a decades-long bipartisan succession of American executives; I am not a liberal, neither is advocating the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine inherently liberal or indeed partisan in any way...
The Fairness Doctrince ensures all ideas get a fair hearing on TV. It is not about censorship; it is about making sure ideas unpopular with television broadcasters cannot be silenced.
Your open exaggeration of my statements isn't greatly reduced by later admitting to doing it, especially when immediately followed by doing it again.
I did not advocate censorship at all. ... Free speech, and free market.
Here you are merely falling in line with the junior wave of the conservative trolls. Is it (sigh) really your position that there should be no slander or libel laws? No false advertising laws? Do you believe (and please if you answer nothing else, answer this one specifically yes or no) that pornography should be allowed, unlabeled and without warnings, between cartoons on saturday morning television?
I have very little to learn from you.
If you start with assumptions you refuse to question, and then make sloppy, dishonest arguments in support of them, and then avoid and ignore every challenging question you are presented with... yes, it seems clear you don't come here to learn anything.
I still dispute it.
Dispute... that television and radio are vastly more exclusive, powerful mass media than their alternatives?
Really? You sure you want to go this route? You seemed a little smarter than the other guy at first.
Now, this doesn't account for advertising, like you are conviently trying to do.
I mean, you already are struggling to explain why communicating for a few seconds on TV is worth way more than communicating for far more time on the Internet, or in a newspaper. Of course, you cannot.
Your own reference doesn't back you up. You are trying to use the smoke and mirrors of a possible future distribution mechanism - one with a few million early adopters using it for pr0n, warez and ISO's - to television.
I think this basically sums up your level of honesty and/or competence.
Right now, you can't reach an audience with Bittorrent the way can reach
It is irrelevant Constitutionally. The Bill of Rights does not include some idea to censor people if they reach "too big" of an audience.
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.
It seems like all of that is too complicated for you to understand, so I'll put it another way with a simple question, which you can answer yes, or no, (or not answer at all, to show you know you're busted):
Do you support pornography on television, on saturday morning, with no warning labels required?
You can stop avoiding the question now. A simple yes or no will do.
Do you believe him on everything?
Not even Dick Cheney agrees with George on everything. It just happens to be something the President and I agree on.
Yes. These responsibilities are served when they broadcast what the public wants. As determined by the public, not the government.
I hope I can soon get you to have the entire "the governments job is to give the public what it wants" debate with me. This will be good.
If the public wants to have segregation return, is that cool with you, AtariAmarok?
Or do we have democracy to form a government tha decides what is best?
Since when is "Freedom of the press" so radical?
You don't want freedom of the press. You've always had freedom of the press. You sometimes claim to want "Freedom of Mass Media," something almost no elected Conservative wants.
You either advocate "Freedom of unlabeled Pornography on TV on Saturday Morning" or you admit you are a lying hypocrite.
I notice you're afraid to respond to this point.
It is central to the discussion that you have supported censoring of political views (so-called "propaganda") you do not agree with.
And it is central to the discussion that you are a known terrorist sympathizer who hates the United States.
Oh wait, I forgot, I'm not you. I don't make things up and pretend you said or did them.
Do you have any specifics of altered TV broadcast content?
I provided it already. The FAIR document.
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.
It does not censor it. It insures that it's fair. if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine. It was part of the intent. No speech was silenced; everyone was perfectly able to communicate their ideas the way they always had, with newspapers and speech (and eventually the Internet, which was around for many years before the rule was repealed), and they did so.
It's interesting to me that the "religious right" are deeply worried about an aborted fetus but hardly ever protest over IVF procedures.
It could lead one to believe in the Christian Baby theory; basically, that their policies on IVF, abortion, and birth control are actually consistent (and cynical): to produce more Christians, at any cost.
You have only labelled conservative views as "propaganda" and called for their censorship.
No, I have labeled propaganda as propaganda.
You are doing is trying to lie about it and cover it up, sloppily.
However, the fact remains that bad Nazi information killed not one single Jew or anyone else. Bad guys with guns did the deed.
Bad guys with guns that would never have been in power without propaganda.
Even Republican U.S. Army generals will tell you that wars are fought with information, in an information theater: the press.
Nazis knew it; they were the first to use television. Goebbles is very quotable; Fox News talking heads love to reference him.
This is an opinion you have about Fox, not a fact.
There are no facts in AtariAmarok's world. Only opinions, that can be disparaged, disagreed with. Lied about.
Fox News is a source of propaganda for this administration. That's a well-documented fact; even many Republican's don't dispute it. Propaganda on television disrupts our democracy. It prevents people from being able to make decisions based on the truth. That means our democratic government doesn't work properly. That puts soldiers' lives in danger.
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.
You advocate having AM radio stations replace Limbaugh with music (so far so good, you say). You advocate NPR news-only stations and "AirAmerica" going off the air. The Fairness Doctrine would demand this. And guess what? Fox News would be unaffected, despite your opinion that it is bad.
Congratulations. You have descended into incoherence.
The Doctrine is intended to apply to Radio and TV. All it says is that even TV and radio owners can't silence their political opponents.
But you, AtariAmarok, want to silence them. I wish we actually knew why. I wonder what motivates you; clearly not the truth, because you demonstrate obvious contempt for it.
I guess that you're just "(arguing) whatever contradictory position (you) think is advantageous on a given day". Also interesting that you dismiss a 1%'er view, when you're coming at me with a far less than 1% view.
Nope. You're just hoping for a diversion, and I'm not giving you one.
"It's what people want" is not an acceptable excuse. If people wanted to discriminate against black people again (in some places they probably still do), that's OK? Say you were a politician faced with that scenario, or a judge. Do you, representing the government, have a duty, in that case?
Interesting how quickly your tone has changed.
It hasn't. The FCC has a censorship regime - a legal policy about what can and can't be broadcast. You lied and said I was "going crazy" about "'decency' laws", but pointing to the truth doesn't make your "exaggeration" look any better.
You were never guaranteed a voice.
Yes, you were. That is what this rule does. It was never perfect, but it worked pretty well. And it is in these few recent years, since it was repealed, that we can see just how well it worked.
You believe that the fairness doctrine actually promoted fairness in broadcasting.
That was what it was designed to do.
you really think that the average sitcom ever provided fair and balanced commentary or served the public trust?
If you get into an issue be fair to it. Sitcoms don't deal with this as much as the News did, for obvious reasons, but of course. Seriously. The FCC regulates it all. News, sitcoms, everything.
This is not true. Especially with Internet.
I answered this in advance, and you did not appear to notice. Let me repeat myself, quoting from the previous post. Do you have a response for this?
Are you ignorant about the way the media works?
Michael Powell is hoping you are when he says things like this.
The market is not ignorant, however.
The market says a few seconds of time on cable is worth orders of magnitude more than weeks or months of advertising on a website, or in a newspaper.
The market knows TV is still that much more powerful. The rules are that important.
Anyone can have a website or a newspaper. But that is part of what makes them far, far less powerful. That is why we still regulate television.
If you, or any conservative really believed any of this "TV is free speech" nonsense you would actually act that way, instead of acting the opposite way and censoring it all the time.
I could go on refuting your points,
But you can't, because you don't know how, and perhaps unlike your companions here in this thread, you are more wary of making too great a fool of yourself?
It's too bad you're giving up, but then again, you weren't arguing very honestly...
Perhaps a "You Cannot Say it Unless I Like It" doctrine would do it for you?
Keep repeat this lie. It deepens your hole.
How is this not "censorship"
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. Only a few people can control the mass media, they have to be fair when they discuss politics, or not discuss it at all.
On TV or radio, if you discuss one side of an issue without being fair to other points of view, you are censoring others who want to speak out in the same forum.
We can always discuss politics outside of the TV or radio; these were always free, and they will always be free.
Assuming that such "majority wants it banned" censorship is OK in the first place.
I am advocating the exact opposite of what you are saying. I don't want to censor one thing on Fox News. Instead, I want them to give equal consideration to opposing viewpoints.
Fox News wants to keep real dissenting opinions off the air. That is censorship.
This applies to everybody who has the privilege of using the limited, very powerful resources of the broadcast spectrum, of any party.
Your wanting to censor people just because they do not share your opinion about issues such as the Iraq war is rather extreme, isn't it?
I am amused.
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.
Fight ideas with ideas
You are the FCC. You won't let me have a TV station. The existing TV stations won't let me on the air. You broadcast 1-sided propaganda on an issue, and refuse to allow anyone representing another side of it on the air. You have censored me.
"Go on the internet," you say. "Write a newspaper."
Sure, that's fair. I have another idea. How about we trade? You get the internet and the newspaper and give me the TV station.
No?
barred Fox News from cable, Fox News' reputation would do nothing but grow:
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. I want them to follow the rules laid out for broadcasters and followed from unto our grandparents days until just a few years ago.
You know what I want, though? I want you to stop being friends with Osama bin Laden. Your giving money to terrorists should not continue.
Oh wait, thought I was you there for a second. There is no more basis to say you give financial support to Al Qaeda than for you to lie about my wanting to selectively censor people.
Why place any limitations on them more than anyone else (fire in crowded theatre, etc) ????
Because the most people a stampede in a crowded theater can kill is a few thousand.
The removal of this pernicious "doctrine" has resulted in more liberal/left voices in media as well as more conservative/right. Under the "Fairness Doctrine" AirAmerica with Al Franken would not exist.
The conservatives love it, because they planned it. They have many times more openly partisan media holdings than any other group.
You don't want Fairness back, because you know it.
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.
Also, your "doctrine was eliminated" statement does not take into account a certain consideration: which came first. The doctrine was eliminated before Rush Limbaugh, and before Fox News (which is not affected by it anyway). In other words, there were no "channels controlled by conservatives" at the time it the doctrine was eliminated.
What a truly idiotic observation.
Yes, rather than break the law, conservatives waited until it was changed before they began to make changes. Do you suggest they should have done it the other way around?
Basically, everything you've said so far is an attempt to deceive the reader.
You lie about what is biased and what's not. Evidence is provided to show you are lying, by a major, credible media watchdog; You make up libels against them. You refuse to back up your claims, saying others should do it for you, or they are lazy. Then you begin to lie about what is in immediately forgoing posts.
You claim I am trying to censor some people, but cannot point to a single place where I say anything but the opposite. 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. You claim that any censorship of any kind is unconstitutional, and then you immediately admit that we need censorship.
Your entire thread is a tantrum, attempting to adjust reality to a series of absurd, obviously false ideas by crude force. Your contempt for your readers is obvious, because your attempts to deceive are so blatantly naked.
There is an element of fascism in any aspect of extending government's power over the governed. However, it must be pointed out that you believe much more strongly in regulating political speech (the term "mass media" is irrelevant) than they are.
"The term mass media is irrelevant" un your imagination.
This is a clever way to try to deceive or confuse people, but it will not work on me. Unless you are fooling yourself you may as well give it up.
I believe what George Bush believes, which is that Television and Radio are different from political speech, because not every American can have a Television or Radio station... The lucky few that can have responsibilities to the American people.
You, however, are a kind of radical broadcast-policy anarchist, who is additionally implying our president is a fascist, during wartime no less.
Which do you think is much more alarming when it comes to the health of the democracy: banning bare boobs or banning opposition political views? You have focused strongly on demanding the latter.
This, ladies and gentlement, is a "clever" debating trick called, I suppose "bait and switch" or "sleight of hand."
He has substituted something absurd, that is basically the opposite of what I am saying: "banning opposition political views." Then attempted to pin it on me.
Meanwhile, it was conservatives ending the Fairness Doctrine that allowed Television broadcasters to silence dissent.
The Fairness Doctrine protects political speech, by making sure it gets on the air when its opposition does, or that, if not, it's discussed in the newspapers, internet, and living rooms, like it always was.
You have only used the term "propaganda" to involve political expression you do not like.
I try to imagine the world the way that AtariAmarok must see it. In this imaginary world my words actually say propaganda is worse by some than others.
However, in reality, all AtariAmarok is doing by using his imagination is showing that he is dishonest, by saying things about printed words a few hyperlinks away that aren't true.
For any political speech, there are never any "victims". Remember the old "sticks and stones" adage.
Since we have cracked open the Nazi slurs, is it alright to rebut this ridiculous statement by pointing out that German Jews would probably disagree with you?
In a democracy these things affect everyone. Information affects policy. Policy affects lives. It is often a matter of life or death. For instance, the propagandists at Fox, by their dishonesty in stumping for the war, have the blood of American soldiers on their hands.
There are plenty of conservatives (too many) that like to censor political speech ("propaganda") of the "other side", just as you, as a liberal, want to censor the side you are not on.
I advocate restoring the Fairness Doctrine. This is precisely the opposite of what you are saying.
But keep lying about it; your credibility might go from zero to less than zero.
You could express yourself perfectly well before television and radio were invented. And you could do so perfectly well afterwards.
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. One of those limits is that they cannot silence dissent. They must be fair and make sure all parties are heard.
Hence, the doctrine was eliminated by conservatives to silence political opposition on the "channels" they control.
The HLA is not as simple as blood type, but it is not like the donor has to be a monozygotic twin of the recipient.
To have stem cell-based therapy you need to bank common HLA types.
The neoconservatives won't pay for it unless making Christian septuplets is somehow involved. "Use the existing '60' lines," they say. So, federal funding blackout on anything likely to be useful in the field. Ever wonder why the Bush compromise was inadequate? This is one big reason.
What we just found out is that, even if you are HLA-compatible with one of the Bush-sanctioned lines, you probably can't use them anyway. That's big news, IMHO.
I quote:
Complicating matters is that common combinations of versions of HLA proteins vary considerably within ethnic or racial groups, and quite dramatically between racial groups. No information is available on the federally approved cell lines' particular combinations of HLA proteins, but the lines' small number and their derivation from embryos created for reproductive use indicate their HLA diversity is likely to be woefully inadequate.
Instead, researchers will need access to a group of human ES cell lines that match as many people as possible. Because there would be limited resources for establishing such a "bank" of ES cell lines and because of concerns for early human life, the panel carefully considered how to optimize Americans' "biological access" to future therapies with these cells....
African-Americans have a greater variety of HLA profiles, so more cell lines would be needed in the bank to potentially match the same percentage of that population as, say, white Americans. According to the panel's calculations, 40 cell lines representing the most common HLA varieties of white Americans would be expected to match about 71 percent of that population. By contrast, 40 cell lines matching the 40 most common HLA types of African-Americans would cover just over 45 percent of that group. Regardless of what percentage of the population is covered, however, new cell lines would have to be established, the panel said.
"No matter how we look at it, the federally approved cell lines are inadequate," says Gearhart. "We can do a lot of work with them, but we can't move into clinical trials or offer therapies with them."
The contaminants cause human antibodies to attack the transplanted cells. This has been demonstrated in experiments. All of this was covered in "TFA." This makes them dangerous and probably useless for human beings without some dubious attempts to remove the contaminants. I say dubious because they are unlikely to succeed, and in addition likely only handle the particular contaminations we already know about.
Have you considered, even for a second, that this is what the people want? Why can't the people who want Fox news have Fox news? There are alternatives, and all viewpoints have a chance to be heard...and they are legitimate viewpoints (whether or not you believe they are, they're still legitimate)
I would love it if giving the people what they want were a major force in politics today.
People want legalized drugs and gambling. They want prostitution.
Well, libertarians rejoice. The other 99% of the country can leave this goofy diversion and continue reading:
Your idea is a liberal one...in fact, it sits on the far left.
You are wrong about me, and about my ideas. Also, it's unusual for "a moderate" to be so quick to erroneously label someone as a "liberal."
I am a political independent making an elementary observation about a glaring feature of politics at the moment. Frankly, I agree with conservatives on a number of issues, from guns to economic policy. But it's OK, I am used to knees jerking. When you stop caring about how people will react and start caring about the truth, you get it all the time.
Where you're setting me off is the idea that you're smarter than everyone else.
Bullshit hypocrisy. I could say the same about you, but I won't because it's nonsense and everyone has their opinion. I haven't called you a Nazi yet, for instance. How is it you choose what to be offended by?
It's not Chinese-style propaganda, because there is still room for multiple viewpoints and analyses on other stations.
Let's look at an analogy.
Ignorance is strength. Bias is balance. War supports the troops. The Fairness Doctrine is censorship.
All four of those lies represent the kind of supreme, audacious hypocrisy that currently exemplifies American conservatives.
(If your knee is jerking yet, because I didn't show proper obeisance to our current rulers, please remind yourself that I can make critical points about a movement without being their diametrical, opposite "enemy" - as if that matters either. Please, read on.)
The Fairness Doctrine is about preventing censorship.
Let's say we can have a magic box that lets you talk to all of America at once. But, the magic is limited; only five people can use it. Who can those five people be? Who should they be?
("Oh oh oh! There's more than 5 now!" I know. Just keep reading.)
This is the kind of choice that faced regulators when this kind of technology was invented decades ago. Their response was to say, the box is dangerous! We need rules! We knew that right away, because the Nazis were the ones who invented it, and they put it to its most notorious uses immediately.
Unlike using your mouth or, to a more limited extent a printing press, we just don't have the ability to let anyone turn up and use the box. And this holds true whether there are 5 chanenls, or ~50 (radio in a given area), or 5,000 (cable). This is the biggest reason why governments, including our current ultraconservative one, claim the absolute right, and absolute necessity to heavily regulate, and censor, television and radio. And claim it they do.
Without the Fairness Doctrine, those 5/50/5,000 people that we chose will choose to limit what can be said, to follow their own interests. So we made a rule saying, hey, if you're using the box, you have a responsibility to be fair.
This is a common rule. Many rich, successful, democratic nations have had it since just after these technologies were invented. We are unique in recently terminating ours. There are plenty of ways to express yourself without having any responsibilities to anyone, including (now) the Internet - as you point out.
The idea is, if you're one of the privileged few we (the people) choose to use the box, say whatever you want, as long as you can be fair and let the other side have their say as well. Not a rigged, "Hannity and Colmes" fak
Well, it depends. If you believe the army of conservative trolls who are desperate to smear and silence my ideas, or if you listen to what I'm saying.
What I am saying is, propaganda on TV is bad news. Some first-world countries outlaw politics on TV altogether. Switzerland, for example, prefers politics be understaken entirely in newsprint and internet, where everyone has an equal voice and you don't have half-billion-dollar campaign treasuries.
The U.S. just created the Fairness Doctrine and it merely said, you have to be fair. No propaganda on TV and radio, because these media don't allow free and equal participation, and people can abuse it. It worked well; it kept people honest and it's why we have pleasing anachronisms like "Broadcast News" to look back to, with bright young professionals who could take their jobs so seriously (let alone get jobs - it was pre-deregulation/consolidation)... and now only a few years later, watching the movie is jarring, because while it was fantasy when it was made, now it's so unrealistic as to be bizarre.
I am not a liberal or a conservative. Incidentally, if you actually read that drunk-driving analogy (let alone twice) you'll see it says nothing about liberals. It deals strictly with some current conservatives who have a pretty ridiculous, and immediately hypocritical, argument. And it is ridiculous to say you can't make these judgement calls - they do it every day, and you have to have the doublethink really cranking not to notice the FCC's current censorship regime. Actual in-the-money conservatives don't put forth this canard, because they know it will make them look ridiculous. Only... with the media spinning as fast as it is, perhaps even they don't have to worry about appearances as much these days.
I would gladly repair the laws against Murdoch/Chinese-style propaganda whether it was in my immediate political interests or not. And I don't consider this, or any other part of my thesis here, to be a "liberal" idea... only a smart one.
If you carry your idiocy to its logical conclusion, then whoever has the most modpoints wins,
What's your definition of winning? What the community considers to be worth voting up tends to be interesting in itself. slashdot is neither a sport or a truth-machine.
You attach negative attributes to conservatives and positive attributes to liberals and try to act like an unbiased commentator on the USA, especially as relating to the state of journalism in it.
Where did I attach a positive attribute to liberals?
You just made that up.
Conservatives run the country. Why should I refrain from dissent? Are you really American?
some journalists are liars and we should look to you to find the truth tellers
Then you are reading with your asshole colored glasses on. I don't think you're stupid enough to have misrepresented what I'm saying this badly by accident.
No surprise you're here defending propaganda on TV...
I'm going to avoid too directly associating myself with your National Socialist - style railing against those you dislike by not answering any of that directly: I'll just point out that, by strict definition, any attempt to revoke existing controls is a liberal doctrine.
Do you believe Michael Powell and George Bush are fascists? They strongly believe in regulating the content of the mass media.
Your own party isn't with you on this one.
Fairness Doctrine-like rules for broadcast media go back to say, around 1937 and were in effect until just a couple of years ago. Was Nixon a fascist? Or how about FDR? This would have been news to Hitler.
Moderation on Slashdot does censor things
No. Pushes them down on the page. Makes them a link away.
though I am somewhat reluctant to label ideas as "bad" in such a blanket fashion as you are.
Yeah you like to take the high road and call people National Socialists. Dude, haven't you people heard of Godwin's law? You lose before you start.
Slashdot Mirror
So this means it is OK for the government to censor political content just because you do not like it?
I can't tell for sure, but now it looks like you're using your clipboard to repeat your lies. I know I can use mine to answer this.
"The Fairness Doctrine protects political speech, by making sure it gets on the air when its opposition does, or that, if not, it's discussed in the newspapers, internet, and living rooms, like it always was."
The porn point is entirely off topic, and is a diversionary tactic.
It is at the very heart of the topic, and you know it. One minute you don't accept any censorship. Next minute you want to censor things. This is the very definition of on-topic, and you are afraid to answer it because you are either a knowing hypocrite or a coward.
If you really believe putting porn on TV without labeling it is OK, just say so.
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.
The government cannot do anything else.
We can't all have television stations without rules, because the signals will overlap. So the government makes rules, divides things up, and says who can broadcast and who can't. By your absurd and illegal definition, they are already "censoring" you the second the FCC regulates anything.
It is therefore very obvious for them to impose rules on the privileged few who get to broadcast, and they do it every day.
The only diversionary tactic is you refusing to admit you are a hypocrite about it, and support the rules only when they do not apply to your love of televised propaganda.
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?
Repeating this baseless lie seems to be your biggest idea.
At this point, because when you have been completely rebutted all you know how to do is repeat what we've already demonstrated is wrong, I will merely supply another self-quote:
"I have never advocated partial censorship; my position on the First Amendment is on solid ground with both sides of the supreme court and a decades-long bipartisan succession of American executives; I am not a liberal, neither is advocating the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine inherently liberal or indeed partisan in any way..."
You cannot point to any place that I have advocated partial censorship. All I have ever advocated is fairness, and this frightens you, so you go into slander mode. Your credibility, your intellectual dignity makes an excellent sacrifice to the cause... you hope.
Which one? The Fox News one had nothing to do with broadcast.
Be more clear about what you want, and I will supply it.
You have devoted entire paragraphs to off-topic and insulting Bin Laden babble.
No sir, most definitely on-topic.
You believe you can make up any accusation you like and refuse to justify it. I am merely playing by your rules. By criticizing this, you are criticizing yourself. Babble does describe what you do, to an extent.
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.
Oh, I see, you've learned a new trick: selectively quoting. I am starting to see why you are so desperate to slander fairness in broadcasting. Perhaps with this latest achievement, you may have enough tricks in your repertoire to be considered something of a junior propagandist yourself. Let's read the rest of the quote.
Maybe you will answer it next time, instead of being sc
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.
No. I never suggested Fox personally profiteers.
Their biased pro-war coverage is well documented.
You mean Fox News would have to add a few token liberals? Oh wait, they already did!
No, their content should be fair. The government already regulates them. They just started giving their propaganda a pass.
"On the nut," coming a guy who believes facts are whatever he says they are, invents outrageous libels and refuses to give even a link to back it up, who likes porn on TV, and who is either against putting warning labels on it or is an avowed hypocrite, and who is a serial liar about immediately preceding posts.
Kind of like Christopher Walken in King of New York. Sells drugs by night, builds a children's hospital by day. He even has a "great" speech about it. Does it sound goofy and incoherent? Yeah, it is.
Monopolies are bad for the economy. They create inefficiencies that propagate into every aspect of our lives and result in traditional economic malaise: substandard goods and services at higher prices, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, stalled progress.
To have the man at the head of the monopoly put on his King's hat and say "I am magnanimous today" makes you feel kind of like an asshole, doesn't it?
Let alone when one of his lackey-wannabes says "Who is as generous as the King?"
Amazing what America has come to.
I'll join in the muck-tossing festival...
... Free speech, and free market.
You're the one tossing the muck.
I don't have a problem with people discriminating against black people...as long as it doesn't prevent them from getting a job, opening a bank account, getting a loan, or anything that gets in the way of anyone's day-to-day life...it's fine.
Obviously that's the point. There are many times the public wants something that's wrong. Maybe they want to deny black people public education. The public may want it, but if elected I presume you would not support it regardless?
Civil rights are not the same as your advocating a "fairness doctrine". Not in the same ballpark, and carely even the same game.
You were the making the bogus argument: "it's what the people want." You know what? You seem smart enough to know that's dishonest justification. The people want a free Mercedez Benz.
You'd much rather talk about what the people want than what is right.
Here, you try to make the same assumpton.
No, I don't.
Notice I did not say "any other conservative" because I did not think you were one, or at least would admit to it, nor does it matter. Pinning labels to try to distract and discredit is your job, apparently. Calling someone a hypocrite for doing it right after you have done it... Are you trying to win some kind of hypocrite award?
As you are probably more aware by the moment, upping the ante like this only makes you look foolish.
Now, let's sum up your track record, shall we?
I have never advocated partial censorship; my position on the First Amendment is on solid ground with both sides of the supreme court and a decades-long bipartisan succession of American executives; I am not a liberal, neither is advocating the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine inherently liberal or indeed partisan in any way...
The Fairness Doctrince ensures all ideas get a fair hearing on TV. It is not about censorship; it is about making sure ideas unpopular with television broadcasters cannot be silenced.
Your open exaggeration of my statements isn't greatly reduced by later admitting to doing it, especially when immediately followed by doing it again.
I did not advocate censorship at all.
Here you are merely falling in line with the junior wave of the conservative trolls. Is it (sigh) really your position that there should be no slander or libel laws? No false advertising laws? Do you believe (and please if you answer nothing else, answer this one specifically yes or no) that pornography should be allowed, unlabeled and without warnings, between cartoons on saturday morning television?
I have very little to learn from you.
If you start with assumptions you refuse to question, and then make sloppy, dishonest arguments in support of them, and then avoid and ignore every challenging question you are presented with... yes, it seems clear you don't come here to learn anything.
I still dispute it.
Dispute... that television and radio are vastly more exclusive, powerful mass media than their alternatives?
Really? You sure you want to go this route? You seemed a little smarter than the other guy at first.
Now, this doesn't account for advertising, like you are conviently trying to do.
I mean, you already are struggling to explain why communicating for a few seconds on TV is worth way more than communicating for far more time on the Internet, or in a newspaper. Of course, you cannot.
Your own reference doesn't back you up. You are trying to use the smoke and mirrors of a possible future distribution mechanism - one with a few million early adopters using it for pr0n, warez and ISO's - to television.
I think this basically sums up your level of honesty and/or competence.
Right now, you can't reach an audience with Bittorrent the way can reach
It is irrelevant Constitutionally. The Bill of Rights does not include some idea to censor people if they reach "too big" of an audience.
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.
It seems like all of that is too complicated for you to understand, so I'll put it another way with a simple question, which you can answer yes, or no, (or not answer at all, to show you know you're busted):
Do you support pornography on television, on saturday morning, with no warning labels required?
You can stop avoiding the question now. A simple yes or no will do.
Do you believe him on everything?
Not even Dick Cheney agrees with George on everything. It just happens to be something the President and I agree on.
Yes. These responsibilities are served when they broadcast what the public wants. As determined by the public, not the government.
I hope I can soon get you to have the entire "the governments job is to give the public what it wants" debate with me. This will be good.
If the public wants to have segregation return, is that cool with you, AtariAmarok?
Or do we have democracy to form a government tha decides what is best?
Since when is "Freedom of the press" so radical?
You don't want freedom of the press. You've always had freedom of the press. You sometimes claim to want "Freedom of Mass Media," something almost no elected Conservative wants.
You either advocate "Freedom of unlabeled Pornography on TV on Saturday Morning" or you admit you are a lying hypocrite.
I notice you're afraid to respond to this point.
It is central to the discussion that you have supported censoring of political views (so-called "propaganda") you do not agree with.
And it is central to the discussion that you are a known terrorist sympathizer who hates the United States.
Oh wait, I forgot, I'm not you. I don't make things up and pretend you said or did them.
Do you have any specifics of altered TV broadcast content?
I provided it already. The FAIR document.
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.
It does not censor it. It insures that it's fair. if some radio or TV stations would rather be silent than fair, that is fine. It was part of the intent. No speech was silenced; everyone was perfectly able to communicate their ideas the way they always had, with newspapers and speech (and eventually the Internet, which was around for many years before the rule was repealed), and they did so.
You got it exactly right.
It's interesting to me that the "religious right" are deeply worried about an aborted fetus but hardly ever protest over IVF procedures.
It could lead one to believe in the Christian Baby theory; basically, that their policies on IVF, abortion, and birth control are actually consistent (and cynical): to produce more Christians, at any cost.
You have only labelled conservative views as "propaganda" and called for their censorship.
No, I have labeled propaganda as propaganda.
You are doing is trying to lie about it and cover it up, sloppily.
However, the fact remains that bad Nazi information killed not one single Jew or anyone else. Bad guys with guns did the deed.
Bad guys with guns that would never have been in power without propaganda.
Even Republican U.S. Army generals will tell you that wars are fought with information, in an information theater: the press.
Nazis knew it; they were the first to use television. Goebbles is very quotable; Fox News talking heads love to reference him.
This is an opinion you have about Fox, not a fact.
There are no facts in AtariAmarok's world. Only opinions, that can be disparaged, disagreed with. Lied about.
Fox News is a source of propaganda for this administration. That's a well-documented fact; even many Republican's don't dispute it. Propaganda on television disrupts our democracy. It prevents people from being able to make decisions based on the truth. That means our democratic government doesn't work properly. That puts soldiers' lives in danger.
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.
You advocate having AM radio stations replace Limbaugh with music (so far so good, you say). You advocate NPR news-only stations and "AirAmerica" going off the air. The Fairness Doctrine would demand this. And guess what? Fox News would be unaffected, despite your opinion that it is bad.
Congratulations. You have descended into incoherence.
The Doctrine is intended to apply to Radio and TV. All it says is that even TV and radio owners can't silence their political opponents.
But you, AtariAmarok, want to silence them. I wish we actually knew why. I wonder what motivates you; clearly not the truth, because you demonstrate obvious contempt for it.
I guess that you're just "(arguing) whatever contradictory position (you) think is advantageous on a given day". Also interesting that you dismiss a 1%'er view, when you're coming at me with a far less than 1% view.
Nope. You're just hoping for a diversion, and I'm not giving you one.
"It's what people want" is not an acceptable excuse. If people wanted to discriminate against black people again (in some places they probably still do), that's OK? Say you were a politician faced with that scenario, or a judge. Do you, representing the government, have a duty, in that case?
Interesting how quickly your tone has changed.
It hasn't. The FCC has a censorship regime - a legal policy about what can and can't be broadcast. You lied and said I was "going crazy" about "'decency' laws", but pointing to the truth doesn't make your "exaggeration" look any better.
You were never guaranteed a voice.
Yes, you were. That is what this rule does. It was never perfect, but it worked pretty well. And it is in these few recent years, since it was repealed, that we can see just how well it worked.
You believe that the fairness doctrine actually promoted fairness in broadcasting.
That was what it was designed to do.
you really think that the average sitcom ever provided fair and balanced commentary or served the public trust?
If you get into an issue be fair to it. Sitcoms don't deal with this as much as the News did, for obvious reasons, but of course. Seriously. The FCC regulates it all. News, sitcoms, everything.
This is not true. Especially with Internet.
I answered this in advance, and you did not appear to notice. Let me repeat myself, quoting from the previous post. Do you have a response for this?
Are you ignorant about the way the media works?
Michael Powell is hoping you are when he says things like this.
The market is not ignorant, however.
The market says a few seconds of time on cable is worth orders of magnitude more than weeks or months of advertising on a website, or in a newspaper.
The market knows TV is still that much more powerful. The rules are that important.
Anyone can have a website or a newspaper. But that is part of what makes them far, far less powerful. That is why we still regulate television.
If you, or any conservative really believed any of this "TV is free speech" nonsense you would actually act that way, instead of acting the opposite way and censoring it all the time.
I could go on refuting your points,
But you can't, because you don't know how, and perhaps unlike your companions here in this thread, you are more wary of making too great a fool of yourself?
It's too bad you're giving up, but then again, you weren't arguing very honestly...
Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket?
Seriously. Just answer the question. This goes to whether the government gives you what you want.
Perhaps a "You Cannot Say it Unless I Like It" doctrine would do it for you?
Keep repeat this lie. It deepens your hole.
How is this not "censorship"
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. Only a few people can control the mass media, they have to be fair when they discuss politics, or not discuss it at all.
On TV or radio, if you discuss one side of an issue without being fair to other points of view, you are censoring others who want to speak out in the same forum.
We can always discuss politics outside of the TV or radio; these were always free, and they will always be free.
Assuming that such "majority wants it banned" censorship is OK in the first place.
I am advocating the exact opposite of what you are saying. I don't want to censor one thing on Fox News. Instead, I want them to give equal consideration to opposing viewpoints.
Fox News wants to keep real dissenting opinions off the air. That is censorship.
This applies to everybody who has the privilege of using the limited, very powerful resources of the broadcast spectrum, of any party.
Your wanting to censor people just because they do not share your opinion about issues such as the Iraq war is rather extreme, isn't it?
I am amused.
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.
Fight ideas with ideas
You are the FCC. You won't let me have a TV station. The existing TV stations won't let me on the air. You broadcast 1-sided propaganda on an issue, and refuse to allow anyone representing another side of it on the air. You have censored me.
"Go on the internet," you say. "Write a newspaper."
Sure, that's fair. I have another idea. How about we trade? You get the internet and the newspaper and give me the TV station.
No?
barred Fox News from cable, Fox News' reputation would do nothing but grow:
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. I want them to follow the rules laid out for broadcasters and followed from unto our grandparents days until just a few years ago.
You know what I want, though? I want you to stop being friends with Osama bin Laden. Your giving money to terrorists should not continue.
Oh wait, thought I was you there for a second. There is no more basis to say you give financial support to Al Qaeda than for you to lie about my wanting to selectively censor people.
Why place any limitations on them more than anyone else (fire in crowded theatre, etc) ????
Because the most people a stampede in a crowded theater can kill is a few thousand.
The removal of this pernicious "doctrine" has resulted in more liberal/left voices in media as well as more conservative/right. Under the "Fairness Doctrine" AirAmerica with Al Franken would not exist.
The conservatives love it, because they planned it. They have many times more openly partisan media holdings than any other group.
You don't want Fairness back, because you know it.
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.
Also, your "doctrine was eliminated" statement does not take into account a certain consideration: which came first. The doctrine was eliminated before Rush Limbaugh, and before Fox News (which is not affected by it anyway). In other words, there were no "channels controlled by conservatives" at the time it the doctrine was eliminated.
What a truly idiotic observation.
Yes, rather than break the law, conservatives waited until it was changed before they began to make changes. Do you suggest they should have done it the other way around?
At least I am consistent.
Consistent at lying. Let's tally it up.
Basically, everything you've said so far is an attempt to deceive the reader.
You lie about what is biased and what's not. Evidence is provided to show you are lying, by a major, credible media watchdog; You make up libels against them. You refuse to back up your claims, saying others should do it for you, or they are lazy. Then you begin to lie about what is in immediately forgoing posts.
You claim I am trying to censor some people, but cannot point to a single place where I say anything but the opposite. 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. You claim that any censorship of any kind is unconstitutional, and then you immediately admit that we need censorship.
Your entire thread is a tantrum, attempting to adjust reality to a series of absurd, obviously false ideas by crude force. Your contempt for your readers is obvious, because your attempts to deceive are so blatantly naked.
There is an element of fascism in any aspect of extending government's power over the governed. However, it must be pointed out that you believe much more strongly in regulating political speech (the term "mass media" is irrelevant) than they are.
"The term mass media is irrelevant" un your imagination.
This is a clever way to try to deceive or confuse people, but it will not work on me. Unless you are fooling yourself you may as well give it up.
I believe what George Bush believes, which is that Television and Radio are different from political speech, because not every American can have a Television or Radio station... The lucky few that can have responsibilities to the American people.
You, however, are a kind of radical broadcast-policy anarchist, who is additionally implying our president is a fascist, during wartime no less.
Which do you think is much more alarming when it comes to the health of the democracy: banning bare boobs or banning opposition political views? You have focused strongly on demanding the latter.
This, ladies and gentlement, is a "clever" debating trick called, I suppose "bait and switch" or "sleight of hand."
He has substituted something absurd, that is basically the opposite of what I am saying: "banning opposition political views." Then attempted to pin it on me.
Meanwhile, it was conservatives ending the Fairness Doctrine that allowed Television broadcasters to silence dissent.
The Fairness Doctrine protects political speech, by making sure it gets on the air when its opposition does, or that, if not, it's discussed in the newspapers, internet, and living rooms, like it always was.
You have only used the term "propaganda" to involve political expression you do not like.
I try to imagine the world the way that AtariAmarok must see it. In this imaginary world my words actually say propaganda is worse by some than others.
However, in reality, all AtariAmarok is doing by using his imagination is showing that he is dishonest, by saying things about printed words a few hyperlinks away that aren't true.
For any political speech, there are never any "victims". Remember the old "sticks and stones" adage.
Since we have cracked open the Nazi slurs, is it alright to rebut this ridiculous statement by pointing out that German Jews would probably disagree with you?
In a democracy these things affect everyone. Information affects policy. Policy affects lives. It is often a matter of life or death. For instance, the propagandists at Fox, by their dishonesty in stumping for the war, have the blood of American soldiers on their hands.
There are plenty of conservatives (too many) that like to censor political speech ("propaganda") of the "other side", just as you, as a liberal, want to censor the side you are not on.
I advocate restoring the Fairness Doctrine. This is precisely the opposite of what you are saying.
But keep lying about it; your credibility might go from zero to less than zero.
You could express yourself perfectly well before television and radio were invented. And you could do so perfectly well afterwards.
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. One of those limits is that they cannot silence dissent. They must be fair and make sure all parties are heard.
Hence, the doctrine was eliminated by conservatives to silence political opposition on the "channels" they control.
The HLA is not as simple as blood type, but it is not like the donor has to be a monozygotic twin of the recipient.
...
0 03 /11_10_03.html
To have stem cell-based therapy you need to bank common HLA types.
The neoconservatives won't pay for it unless making Christian septuplets is somehow involved. "Use the existing '60' lines," they say. So, federal funding blackout on anything likely to be useful in the field. Ever wonder why the Bush compromise was inadequate? This is one big reason.
What we just found out is that, even if you are HLA-compatible with one of the Bush-sanctioned lines, you probably can't use them anyway. That's big news, IMHO.
I quote:
Complicating matters is that common combinations of versions of HLA proteins vary considerably within ethnic or racial groups, and quite dramatically between racial groups. No information is available on the federally approved cell lines' particular combinations of HLA proteins, but the lines' small number and their derivation from embryos created for reproductive use indicate their HLA diversity is likely to be woefully inadequate.
Instead, researchers will need access to a group of human ES cell lines that match as many people as possible. Because there would be limited resources for establishing such a "bank" of ES cell lines and because of concerns for early human life, the panel carefully considered how to optimize Americans' "biological access" to future therapies with these cells.
African-Americans have a greater variety of HLA profiles, so more cell lines would be needed in the bank to potentially match the same percentage of that population as, say, white Americans. According to the panel's calculations, 40 cell lines representing the most common HLA varieties of white Americans would be expected to match about 71 percent of that population. By contrast, 40 cell lines matching the 40 most common HLA types of African-Americans would cover just over 45 percent of that group. Regardless of what percentage of the population is covered, however, new cell lines would have to be established, the panel said.
"No matter how we look at it, the federally approved cell lines are inadequate," says Gearhart. "We can do a lot of work with them, but we can't move into clinical trials or offer therapies with them."
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2
The contaminants cause human antibodies to attack the transplanted cells. This has been demonstrated in experiments. All of this was covered in "TFA." This makes them dangerous and probably useless for human beings without some dubious attempts to remove the contaminants. I say dubious because they are unlikely to succeed, and in addition likely only handle the particular contaminations we already know about.
Have you considered, even for a second, that this is what the people want? Why can't the people who want Fox news have Fox news? There are alternatives, and all viewpoints have a chance to be heard...and they are legitimate viewpoints (whether or not you believe they are, they're still legitimate)
I would love it if giving the people what they want were a major force in politics today.
People want legalized drugs and gambling. They want prostitution.
Well, libertarians rejoice. The other 99% of the country can leave this goofy diversion and continue reading:
Your idea is a liberal one...in fact, it sits on the far left.
You are wrong about me, and about my ideas. Also, it's unusual for "a moderate" to be so quick to erroneously label someone as a "liberal."
I am a political independent making an elementary observation about a glaring feature of politics at the moment. Frankly, I agree with conservatives on a number of issues, from guns to economic policy. But it's OK, I am used to knees jerking. When you stop caring about how people will react and start caring about the truth, you get it all the time.
Where you're setting me off is the idea that you're smarter than everyone else.
Bullshit hypocrisy. I could say the same about you, but I won't because it's nonsense and everyone has their opinion. I haven't called you a Nazi yet, for instance. How is it you choose what to be offended by?
It's not Chinese-style propaganda, because there is still room for multiple viewpoints and analyses on other stations.
Let's look at an analogy.
Ignorance is strength. Bias is balance. War supports the troops. The Fairness Doctrine is censorship.
All four of those lies represent the kind of supreme, audacious hypocrisy that currently exemplifies American conservatives.
(If your knee is jerking yet, because I didn't show proper obeisance to our current rulers, please remind yourself that I can make critical points about a movement without being their diametrical, opposite "enemy" - as if that matters either. Please, read on.)
The Fairness Doctrine is about preventing censorship.
Let's say we can have a magic box that lets you talk to all of America at once. But, the magic is limited; only five people can use it. Who can those five people be? Who should they be?
("Oh oh oh! There's more than 5 now!" I know. Just keep reading.)
This is the kind of choice that faced regulators when this kind of technology was invented decades ago. Their response was to say, the box is dangerous! We need rules! We knew that right away, because the Nazis were the ones who invented it, and they put it to its most notorious uses immediately.
Unlike using your mouth or, to a more limited extent a printing press, we just don't have the ability to let anyone turn up and use the box. And this holds true whether there are 5 chanenls, or ~50 (radio in a given area), or 5,000 (cable). This is the biggest reason why governments, including our current ultraconservative one, claim the absolute right, and absolute necessity to heavily regulate, and censor, television and radio. And claim it they do.
Without the Fairness Doctrine, those 5/50/5,000 people that we chose will choose to limit what can be said, to follow their own interests. So we made a rule saying, hey, if you're using the box, you have a responsibility to be fair.
This is a common rule. Many rich, successful, democratic nations have had it since just after these technologies were invented. We are unique in recently terminating ours. There are plenty of ways to express yourself without having any responsibilities to anyone, including (now) the Internet - as you point out.
The idea is, if you're one of the privileged few we (the people) choose to use the box, say whatever you want, as long as you can be fair and let the other side have their say as well. Not a rigged, "Hannity and Colmes" fak
So, among "liberal-haters"... do you think of yourself highly?
I mean, ignorantly trolling an issue, and then calling your political opponents Nazis... Is that about the best you guys have?
So, in other words, you don't explain it. Reality doesn't fit with your theory, hence... out with reality.
I think I see the main reason why this upsets, too. You don't understand what the Fairness Doctrine is.
It doesn't silence anybody.
It just prevents propaganda.
It was perfectly legal to have each side of an issue come on the news and give their own propaganda. They usually did, on a daily basis.
What was illegal was having a TV or radio broadcaster not giving both sides of the issue.
Silencing their opponents, in other words.
Well, it depends. If you believe the army of conservative trolls who are desperate to smear and silence my ideas, or if you listen to what I'm saying.
What I am saying is, propaganda on TV is bad news. Some first-world countries outlaw politics on TV altogether. Switzerland, for example, prefers politics be understaken entirely in newsprint and internet, where everyone has an equal voice and you don't have half-billion-dollar campaign treasuries.
The U.S. just created the Fairness Doctrine and it merely said, you have to be fair. No propaganda on TV and radio, because these media don't allow free and equal participation, and people can abuse it. It worked well; it kept people honest and it's why we have pleasing anachronisms like "Broadcast News" to look back to, with bright young professionals who could take their jobs so seriously (let alone get jobs - it was pre-deregulation/consolidation)... and now only a few years later, watching the movie is jarring, because while it was fantasy when it was made, now it's so unrealistic as to be bizarre.
I am not a liberal or a conservative. Incidentally, if you actually read that drunk-driving analogy (let alone twice) you'll see it says nothing about liberals. It deals strictly with some current conservatives who have a pretty ridiculous, and immediately hypocritical, argument. And it is ridiculous to say you can't make these judgement calls - they do it every day, and you have to have the doublethink really cranking not to notice the FCC's current censorship regime. Actual in-the-money conservatives don't put forth this canard, because they know it will make them look ridiculous. Only... with the media spinning as fast as it is, perhaps even they don't have to worry about appearances as much these days.
I would gladly repair the laws against Murdoch/Chinese-style propaganda whether it was in my immediate political interests or not. And I don't consider this, or any other part of my thesis here, to be a "liberal" idea... only a smart one.
If you carry your idiocy to its logical conclusion, then whoever has the most modpoints wins,
What's your definition of winning? What the community considers to be worth voting up tends to be interesting in itself. slashdot is neither a sport or a truth-machine.
You attach negative attributes to conservatives and positive attributes to liberals and try to act like an unbiased commentator on the USA, especially as relating to the state of journalism in it.
Where did I attach a positive attribute to liberals?
You just made that up.
Conservatives run the country. Why should I refrain from dissent? Are you really American?
some journalists are liars and we should look to you to find the truth tellers
Then you are reading with your asshole colored glasses on. I don't think you're stupid enough to have misrepresented what I'm saying this badly by accident.
No surprise you're here defending propaganda on TV...
I'm going to avoid too directly associating myself with your National Socialist - style railing against those you dislike by not answering any of that directly: I'll just point out that, by strict definition, any attempt to revoke existing controls is a liberal doctrine.
Do you believe Michael Powell and George Bush are fascists? They strongly believe in regulating the content of the mass media.
Your own party isn't with you on this one.
Fairness Doctrine-like rules for broadcast media go back to say, around 1937 and were in effect until just a couple of years ago. Was Nixon a fascist? Or how about FDR? This would have been news to Hitler.
Moderation on Slashdot does censor things
No. Pushes them down on the page. Makes them a link away.
though I am somewhat reluctant to label ideas as "bad" in such a blanket fashion as you are.
Yeah you like to take the high road and call people National Socialists. Dude, haven't you people heard of Godwin's law? You lose before you start.