Posted on 01/28/2009 2:14:06 PM PST by Delacon
I didn’t think Bam Bam would jump on this right away. He has to be stopped.
There was a saying that politics stops at the water’s edge meaning that the US should present a united front in the world arena. Well we all know that ship has sailed. Now the opposite is happening. Certain politicians are joining other countries and foreign organizations as a united front in attacking the US constitution and its institutions. Obama may surf a tidal wave of european born threats to our freedoms onto our own shores. My apologies for the tortured metaphores.
The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?
In other words, satellite radio, cable TV, and so forth would not be subject to it. Only AM, FM, UHF and VHF TV. Correct?
Not that I’m in favor of it (which I’m definitely not), nor do I think it’s “harmless” (I think it’s VERY harmful).
However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.
That might be kinda cool.
Thanks for the heads up. I’ll correct it.
And has most likely increased Rush's listenership in the process.
That's what it should apply to, if everyone follows the rules. If someone rewrites the rules to cover other communications channels, then anything could happen.
Since The One's goal is to eliminate dissent, I expect he'd write something that covers any channel that could hurt The Party's dissemination of ideas and knowledge.
He'll likely go after talk radio, but consider too all the web sites where we can see real climate data as opposed to the stuff Gore spews.
The first effect will be as you predict, I think, with many radio stations folding when the money-making hosts are gone.
Well what about streaming media (voice and TV) delivered via wireless internet services on frequencies previously allocated to TV broadcasting?
>> If someone rewrites the rules to cover other communications channels, then anything could happen.
I see your point, but as a practical matter, it would be very difficult, if not intractable, to control Internet content. Then too, there are free speech issues with trying to impose “fairness” on paid subscriber channels that I don’t think the Supremes could ignore. I wouldn’t put it past the communists to try, however.
>> many radio stations folding when the money-making hosts are gone.
If I remember correctly, AM radio was in the doldrums until President Reagan rescinded the Fairness doctrine... then it exploded. A renewed Fairness Doctrine might kill AM. Who the hell would listen to music on AM?
Side point: I would almost — ALMOST — be in favor of a “fairness doctrine” if every program INCLUDING NEWS AND PRIMETIME TEEVEE was included. Just think, a 1/2 hour of “news” plus a half hour of conservative rebuttal! Or, “Will and Grace”... followed by a Christian sitcom with a clear anti-homo message! I’m not serious... but I’m almost serious.
It is my thinking (and it is only conjecture) that the internet will eventually moot the fairness doctrine, the FCC, advertising limits, censorship and all such other constraints on information sharing of just about any kind.
Much as movable type ended the Roman Catholic Church’s monopoly on Bible ownership, the internet will shatter today’s puny political shackles.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8014/index2.html
The Information Age and the Printing Press: Looking Backward to See Ahead[1]
“However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.”
I think you are correct. Conservative talk radio makes money. if they were prohibited from broadcasting Satellite media would flourish by picking up the conservative talk shows. I already listen to Hannity and a bunch of others on Sat and only tune to AM to hear Rush.
I hereby volunteer to be the token liberal counter to all of rushes comments ! I can make liberals look worse than the idiots they are with my version of their side ! Sort of a butt head rebuttal per se.......
>> Well what about streaming media (voice and TV) delivered via wireless internet services on frequencies previously allocated to TV broadcasting?
Who controls the spectrum? Does the FCC license it to a few lucky owners? Or can anyone broadcast there? And, is it free for all to receive it, or is it “scrambled” like satellite and you have to pay for a key to unsubscribe it?
Who is likely to control the launch and control of the satellites?
Who controls the frequencies the satellites use to communicate with the ground?
The lefties already have the MSM, PBS, NPR, etc. that are their propoganda machine. Of course, they deny that they are liberal media, but sponsors of talk radio know the audience of the conservative shows ARE wage-earners and buyers of goods and services. Unlike Lefties, who have to be funded by TAXPAYERS because their voterbase ain’t got two nickels to rub together, and is dependent on handouts for their survival.
Of likely interest to you two.
There are all sorts of new services that are supposed to start up for customers of companies that lease spectrum from the FCC. The ironic thing is that I bet it is much more wasteful of spectrum for 10 million people to stream the same program to their wireless devices at various times of day than it is for one radio station in each market to broadcast the same program once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.