Posted on 05/11/2007 3:30:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
> The relevant section is this:
> “(a) Public Interest Obligation to Cover Publicly Important Issues- A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance....
Thanks. I wonder if the the Dems don’t realize that this could backfire. I mean PBS, for example, would have to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. Or are they exempt from presenting any opinion but thier own? :)
It could indeed backfire, but there is a fairly easy, albeit intellectually dishonest (but when has that stopped a Leftist?), way of finessing that requirement:
Suppose that I am a presenter on a PBS "current affairs" program. Suppose further that I wish to propagate some nonsensical thesis (that human activity is causing the Global climate to heat up, for example). What I do is to arrange a discussion between two advocates of positions respectively for, and against, my thesis. However, the person I choose to represent the case I support will be articulate, well-informed and charismatic, while his/her opponent will be some half-baked conspiracy-theorist dredged from the nether reaches of some group widely seen as ridiculous. (I will, of course, make sure that this person's affiliation is clearly stated; it would also help if English is not this person's first language). I will pretend to be a neutral, disinterested arbiter who, during the course of this "debate", will come to be persuaded of the view that I already held.
This is a technique for which the BBC has been notorious for at least the past 40-odd years.
Now suppose that you are the popular, well-known host of a radio talk show. Absent the Fairness Doctrine, you can, at your leisure, refute my entire program point-by-point, revealing my bias and dishonesty in the process. (This is why such techniques are not as successful as they might otherwise be at present).
However, under the Fairness Doctrine, you would be required to grant me "equal time" to rebut your refutation, thus at the very least diluting its effect.
All-in-all, I think it is best that the abomination known as the Fairness Doctrine remain an historical curiosity, never to be re-enacted.
You’re saying that a revival of the fairness doctrine would not cause See BS to stop shilling for the DNC?
No way.
I find it amazing that no one from Maryland is sponsoring this bill. I guess I should count my blessings.
People like me would stop listening to talk radio, since we wouldn't want to put up with liberal crap half the time, causing the format to tank. While technically not censorship, talk radio would risk being dead.
Boortz sounds like he’s surprised that such things have been going on like this since Howard Stern appeared on the scene. So, Boortz is advocating that folks should be fired any old time he gets offended? That’s text book liberalism. . . Besides, wouldn’t it be nice if The Wall Banger, Hush Bimbo & Opie and Anthony vanished from broadcasting all together? If the left wants to bring back the fairness doctrine, HR 3302, RT-D2, or whatever else, don’t you think that their ideas will be labeled just as easily as “hate speech?” Let them hang themselves with their own rope. Imus for president!
Kalsin, just want to tell you I appreciate your bringing up these issues for discussion. I think these two should have been fired instantly. I read part of the transcript of their show, and it was so disgusting, shocking, violent and misogynistic, I could not finish it. This is beyond the typical vulgarity of satellite radio, it’s openly advocating rape!
There is another story about “Shock Jocks fired over comments” (I thought was on Drudge a few days ago). I opened it, assuming it would be about this Condi rape scenario, and was amazed it was a COMPARATIVELY harmless joke by two other radio hosts, making fun of Asian-Americans.
Granted, that is offensive, but not nearly as bad as acting out a horrifically violent and illegal attack on an actual living person.
Please read my response again.....I meant just the opposite.....
Boortz is an aging professional pot stirrer, first and foremost. He'll take whatever stance he needs to to keep his show. Did you know he's got a book to sell you? He's oreilly without the ratings.
I was sure I put a :) at the end of “No way,” in my other post, but I see it is not there. I’m sorry, I didn’t make my statement clear.
I recall the fairness doctrine from growing up outside New York City. The music stations on the radio applied it by airing very mild religious shows on Sunday morning. The tv stations would run at least one news story a week that did not trash conservatives. Then they would give some moonbat a minute to rant about how the conservative position was evil. I’d like to call it a farce, but it wasn’t funny.
hey boortz i think that people have a desision to listen to what they want i will agree that some times things get out of hand nut still its not like a four year old would be messed up if he listened to o&a but still the genre of o&a is dark humor this means talking about death mental dissabilities and othe obscene things and many people enjoy this just because you find it repulsing does not mean that everyone hates them i am truly dissapointed in your behavior to ward this
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.