Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.
Yeah, for the worst.
I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.
.
Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.
I believe he's referring to the fairness doctrine.
"Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."
This meant you had to either speak on both sides of the argument, or have someone from each side speak to their respective arguments. Very clear violation of the first amendment.
Nope. Also wrong, didn't work that way. It required that licensees present a diversity of viewpoints, which had wide latitude which was open to the broadcasters' interpretation. And it required that if a broadcast was a personal attack or criticism, then the attacked party could have air time to respond. The Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans concerned over the influence FDR was having with his "fireside chats". Although it was rarely invoked, one time it was was in 1954 after Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" broadcast its scathing exposé of Joe McCarthy. The Wisconsin Senator requested air time to respond and CBS gave it to him -- the whole hour.
I worked in broadcasting both during the Fairness Doctrine and after it was abolished. The difference in my stations' operation was ----- absolutely nothing.
Thanks for clearing that up, I still see it as unconstitutional, in violation of the 1st amendment, which is pretty clear.
Im posting the text, instead of link, because it's easier to refer to than jumping back and forth between web pages.Yeah, for the worst.
I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.
.
Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.
I believe he's referring to the fairness doctrine.
"Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."
This meant you had to either speak on both sides of the argument, or have someone from each side speak to their respective arguments. Very clear violation of the first amendment.
Nope. Also wrong, didn't work that way. It required that licensees present a diversity of viewpoints, which had wide latitude which was open to the broadcasters' interpretation. And it required that if a broadcast was a personal attack or criticism, then the attacked party could have air time to respond. The Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans concerned over the influence FDR was having with his "fireside chats". Although it was rarely invoked, one time it was was in 1954 after Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" broadcast its scathing exposé of Joe McCarthy. The Wisconsin Senator requested air time to respond and CBS gave it to him -- the whole hour.
I worked in broadcasting both during the Fairness Doctrine and after it was abolished. The difference in my stations' operation was ----- absolutely nothing.
Thanks for clearing that up, I still see it as unconstitutional, in violation of the 1st amendment, which is pretty clear.
Actually not clear at all. I added in a line at the end that addresses that directly --
even if it had required a single argument to be presented on all sides there's no "violation of the First Amendment" therein. The 1A ensures that a view can't be silenced by the government. If you're presenting all views ------- then obviously no single one of them has been "silenced". On the contrary it's been aired.
Im posting the text, instead of link, because it's easier to refer to than jumping back and forth between web pages.Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.
I believe he's referring to the fairness doctrine.
"Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."
This meant you had to either speak on both sides of the argument, or have someone from each side speak to their respective arguments. Very clear violation of the first amendment.
Nope. Also wrong, didn't work that way. It required that licensees present a diversity of viewpoints, which had wide latitude which was open to the broadcasters' interpretation. And it required that if a broadcast was a personal attack or criticism, then the attacked party could have air time to respond. The Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans concerned over the influence FDR was having with his "fireside chats". Although it was rarely invoked, one time it was was in 1954 after Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" broadcast its scathing exposé of Joe McCarthy. The Wisconsin Senator requested air time to respond and CBS gave it to him -- the whole hour.
I worked in broadcasting both during the Fairness Doctrine and after it was abolished. The difference in my stations' operation was ----- absolutely nothing.
Thanks for clearing that up, I still see it as unconstitutional, in violation of the 1st amendment, which is pretty clear.
Actually not clear at all. I added in a line at the end that addresses that directly --
even if it had required a single argument to be presented on all sides there's no "violation of the First Amendment" therein. The 1A ensures that a view can't be silenced by the government. If you're presenting all views ------- then obviously no single one of them has been "silenced". On the contrary it's been aired.
"Constitution First Amendment text
Amendment Text | Annotations. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
See Congress shall make no law. And then abridging the freedom of speech. Abridging meant in the realm of law, which is also curtail, defined as reduce in extant or quantity, or impose a restriction.
This restriction coming in the form of you cannot say what it is you think, without voicing the opposition of your own opinion. Your forcing people to speak thoughts that are outside of their own thoughts or beliefs. Also it puts a limit to the press, saying that press has to follow these guidelines we deem as fair, if they want to report on how good swedens policy of such and such is, they also have to report on the negatives of such and such policy.
See the phrase broadcast license (license is something asked of and then granted by the government, with governments permission to preform.) Which is a violation of the 1st since government is not to be in the business of granting access of who can be the press, wether it's radio, print, tv or whatever. Also whose definition of news is that? The press encompasses news, and they are not to be infringed upon. Having opinion based news has been around forever, since the dawn of this nation. That was not to be infringed upon.Im posting the text, instead of link, because it's easier to refer to than jumping back and forth between web pages.I believe he's referring to the fairness doctrine.
"Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."
This meant you had to either speak on both sides of the argument, or have someone from each side speak to their respective arguments. Very clear violation of the first amendment.
Nope. Also wrong, didn't work that way. It required that licensees present a diversity of viewpoints, which had wide latitude which was open to the broadcasters' interpretation. And it required that if a broadcast was a personal attack or criticism, then the attacked party could have air time to respond. The Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans concerned over the influence FDR was having with his "fireside chats". Although it was rarely invoked, one time it was was in 1954 after Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" broadcast its scathing exposé of Joe McCarthy. The Wisconsin Senator requested air time to respond and CBS gave it to him -- the whole hour.
I worked in broadcasting both during the Fairness Doctrine and after it was abolished. The difference in my stations' operation was ----- absolutely nothing.
Thanks for clearing that up, I still see it as unconstitutional, in violation of the 1st amendment, which is pretty clear.
Actually not clear at all. I added in a line at the end that addresses that directly --
even if it had required a single argument to be presented on all sides there's no "violation of the First Amendment" therein. The 1A ensures that a view can't be silenced by the government. If you're presenting all views ------- then obviously no single one of them has been "silenced". On the contrary it's been aired.
"Constitution First Amendment text
Amendment Text | Annotations. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
See Congress shall make no law. And then abridging the freedom of speech. Abridging meant in the realm of law, which is also curtail, defined as reduce in extant or quantity, or impose a restriction.
This restriction coming in the form of you cannot say what it is you think, without voicing the opposition of your own opinion. Your forcing people to speak thoughts that are outside of their own thoughts or beliefs. Also it puts a limit to the press, saying that press has to follow these guidelines we deem as fair, if they want to report on how good swedens policy of such and such is, they also have to report on the negatives of such and such policy.
No, you're not. And it's not the "press" either; it's (was) a condition of being granted a broadcast license. Has nothing at all to do with reporting the news. Reporting the news is stark, cold fact. Not anyone's "view" of it -- that's opinion.
Because the topic of the thread is to "...list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with."You mention Fox news, but fail to mention the BIg Three Networks, CNN, or BBC, all dominated by your fellow travelers.
For me, it's how the right has been able to network their message across all forms of media to reach the maximum number of people around the globe and you are living proof of how vast that infrastructure has become. It's amazing to see how the right has been able to recruit (and organize) so many mentally (and socially) incapable idiots thinking they have what it takes to run this country.
People like you, who can't say a nice thing about the opposition if your life depended on it, thinking people in this country actually want someone like you running it? To think that we would want a leader, who doesn't get along with anyone, is just absurd. To think we would want people who lie, burn bridges and put themselves ahead of our country as our leaders, is nuts!
Look in the mirror, because what you see, is the last person in the world we want running this government.
See the phrase broadcast license (license is something asked of and then granted by the government, with governments permission to preform.) Which is a violation of the 1st since government is not to be in the business of granting access of who can be the press, wether it's radio, print, tv or whatever.
Never said they had to state that it was their own opinion, just that they were not to state their opinion without having the other opinion expressed. This would be like telling a print version of press, they cannot have an op-ed without printing on op-ed with the other point of view. Which would be a violation. It would also be a violation to tell a print newspaper they can only report on cold hard facts and nothing else.
No because you're still forcing people to state views they don't agree with, whether or not they state they are not their own views, they are still forced to say them.
And that monopoly was started by the government licensing. They regulated and shrunk the field and then had to further regulate it.
Again no one is being forced to state opposing view points, this site doesn't have to bring in or post an opposing viewpoints, it's done by the volition of those who participate
The broadcaster, it's crucial to understand, does not own the airwaves. WE do. That was defined from day one -- that's why they're called the "public airwaves". The broadcaster gets to use those airwaves (for free I might add) at the pleasure of the People. So the FD --- and the Equal Time rule for that matter -- are put there for our protection, to ensure that no broadcaster gets to own the discourse.
This would be like saying, the people own a newspaper, or a certain type of medium, and therefore government is now allowed to regulate how they see fit. This would be a silly concept for newspapers. It turned out to be a silly concept for radio, since the ratings for political talk radio didn't explode until after abolition of fairness doctrine. And government taking control of radio did not help the people, and did not advance radio technology. FM radio was suppressed for many years. And is why government should not be in the business of licensing who says what, through whatever medium.
Wow, this is a mess. I'm gonna clean it up as much as I can but some of the nest will be lost.
See the phrase broadcast license (license is something asked of and then granted by the government, with governments permission to preform.) Which is a violation of the 1st since government is not to be in the business of granting access of who can be the press, wether it's radio, print, tv or whatever.
The license has nothing to do with "who can be the press" at all. The license is for "who may use this designated channel of the public airwaves" --- whatever their purpose in using that channel may be.
Those designated channels are (were at the time of FD's operation) limited. There were, say, twenty available channels for a given city, and when they were spoken for, there are no more. That's not true of newspapers. Completely different thing. Hence the regulations curbing monopoly, inefective though it may have been.
Never said they had to state that it was their own opinion, just that they were not to state their opinion without having the other opinion expressed. This would be like telling a print version of press, they cannot have an op-ed without printing on op-ed with the other point of view. Which would be a violation. It would also be a violation to tell a print newspaper they can only report on cold hard facts and nothing else.
Again, nobody was ever forced to do any such things, but even if they had been --- by your own description it's not suppressing any particular view at all. It's doing the opposite. Therefore you have no violation.
No because you're still forcing people to state views they don't agree with, whether or not they state they are not their own views, they are still forced to say them.
Again -- no, they're not. What it means is that if a broadcast station declares "here's why we think you should vote Yes on referendum X", then somebody else can use those same public airwaves can go on and say "here's why we think you should vote no". And voilà -- you have both views and you can make up your own mind which view makes sense.
The key word, again, is PUBLIC. Think of the broadcast station as the public forum. The FD didn't want the placeholders of that forum to dictate who can say what. Just as the Constitution doesn't want the government to dictate who can say what. Same thing in microcosm.
And that monopoly was started by the government licensing. They regulated and shrunk the field and then had to further regulate it.
There is no "shrinking". Channels of the airwaves were allocated as far as the technology would allow without interference. Before the Federal Radio Commission (precursor of the FCC) anyone could put up a transmitter. And if you put up ten watts I could put up a hundred watts, then you'd put up a thousand and I'd put up ten thousand. It was chaos. Limited space means limited. That's a technical reality.
In fact the argument for dropping the Fairness Doctrine was that that original limitation was far less limited, with FM radio, UHF television, and then cable, and now internet. But in the 1940s that wasn't the case; the technology is by definition limited.
Again no one is being forced to state opposing view points, this site doesn't have to bring in or post an opposing viewpoints, it's done by the volition of those who participate
The site, in this analogy, represents the public forum --- the broadcast spectrum. Consider a blog site then. I write my blogs, and you can't write on it. If the internet allowed a limited number of blog sites and you were too late getting one --- you'd be out of luck. You'd have no outlet. IF that were the case and the Federal Internet Commission declared "since internet space is limited, you have to let Sakinago post comments", then you'd have a voice on that basis.
But the internet is not limited, and there's no such thing as a Federal Internet Commission. This is just another attempt at analogy.
The broadcaster, it's crucial to understand, does not own the airwaves. WE do. That was defined from day one -- that's why they're called the "public airwaves". The broadcaster gets to use those airwaves (for free I might add) at the pleasure of the People. So the FD --- and the Equal Time rule for that matter -- are put there for our protection, to ensure that no broadcaster gets to own the discourse.
This would be like saying, the people own a newspaper, or a certain type of medium, and therefore government is now allowed to regulate how they see fit. This would be a silly concept for newspapers. It turned out to be a silly concept for radio, since the ratings for political talk radio didn't explode until after abolition of fairness doctrine. And government taking control of radio did not help the people, and did not advance radio technology. FM radio was suppressed for many years. And is why government should not be in the business of licensing who says what, through whatever medium.
No it would not. A newspaper is printed on a resource which is not limited. There's no reason two, five, fifteen or 150 newspapers could not PHYSICALLY exist in the same place, whether they could capture an audience or not. PAPER is not limited. AIRWAVES are.
FM radio was not at all "suppressed" except by the broadcast "industry". Actually it was, again, the government that unsupressed it, primarily by mandating that AM stations ---which dominated at the time --- could not simply parrot their AM content onto their FM channel; they had to have some amount of different programming. THAT was when FM took off. Like it or not, it was the government that made that happen. Doing its job as the steward of the public airwaves.
Wow, this is a mess. I'm gonna clean it up as much as I can but some of the nest will be lost.
See the phrase broadcast license (license is something asked of and then granted by the government, with governments permission to preform.) Which is a violation of the 1st since government is not to be in the business of granting access of who can be the press, wether it's radio, print, tv or whatever.
The license has nothing to do with "who can be the press" at all. The license is for "who may use this designated channel of the public airwaves" --- whatever their purpose in using that channel may be.
Those designated channels are (were at the time of FD's operation) limited. There were, say, twenty available channels for a given city, and when they were spoken for, there are no more. That's not true of newspapers. Completely different thing. Hence the regulations curbing monopoly, inefective though it may have been.
Never said they had to state that it was their own opinion, just that they were not to state their opinion without having the other opinion expressed. This would be like telling a print version of press, they cannot have an op-ed without printing on op-ed with the other point of view. Which would be a violation. It would also be a violation to tell a print newspaper they can only report on cold hard facts and nothing else.
Again, nobody was ever forced to do any such things, but even if they had been --- by your own description it's not suppressing any particular view at all. It's doing the opposite. Therefore you have no violation.
No because you're still forcing people to state views they don't agree with, whether or not they state they are not their own views, they are still forced to say them.
Again -- no, they're not. What it means is that if a broadcast station declares "here's why we think you should vote Yes on referendum X", then somebody else can use those same public airwaves can go on and say "here's why we think you should vote no". And voilà -- you have both views and you can make up your own mind which view makes sense.
The key word, again, is PUBLIC. Think of the broadcast station as the public forum. The FD didn't want the placeholders of that forum to dictate who can say what. Just as the Constitution doesn't want the government to dictate who can say what. Same thing in microcosm.
And that monopoly was started by the government licensing. They regulated and shrunk the field and then had to further regulate it.
There is no "shrinking". Channels of the airwaves were allocated as far as the technology would allow without interference. Before the Federal Radio Commission (precursor of the FCC) anyone could put up a transmitter. And if you put up ten watts I could put up a hundred watts, then you'd put up a thousand and I'd put up ten thousand. It was chaos. Limited space means limited. That's a technical reality.
In fact the argument for dropping the Fairness Doctrine was that that original limitation was far less limited, with FM radio, UHF television, and then cable, and now internet. But in the 1940s that wasn't the case; the technology is by definition limited.
Again no one is being forced to state opposing view points, this site doesn't have to bring in or post an opposing viewpoints, it's done by the volition of those who participate
The site, in this analogy, represents the public forum --- the broadcast spectrum. Consider a blog site then. I write my blogs, and you can't write on it. If the internet allowed a limited number of blog sites and you were too late getting one --- you'd be out of luck. You'd have no outlet. IF that were the case and the Federal Internet Commission declared "since internet space is limited, you have to let Sakinago post comments", then you'd have a voice on that basis.
But the internet is not limited, and there's no such thing as a Federal Internet Commission. This is just another attempt at analogy.
The broadcaster, it's crucial to understand, does not own the airwaves. WE do. That was defined from day one -- that's why they're called the "public airwaves". The broadcaster gets to use those airwaves (for free I might add) at the pleasure of the People. So the FD --- and the Equal Time rule for that matter -- are put there for our protection, to ensure that no broadcaster gets to own the discourse.
This would be like saying, the people own a newspaper, or a certain type of medium, and therefore government is now allowed to regulate how they see fit. This would be a silly concept for newspapers. It turned out to be a silly concept for radio, since the ratings for political talk radio didn't explode until after abolition of fairness doctrine. And government taking control of radio did not help the people, and did not advance radio technology. FM radio was suppressed for many years. And is why government should not be in the business of licensing who says what, through whatever medium.
No it would not. A newspaper is printed on a resource which is not limited. There's no reason two, five, fifteen or 150 newspapers could not PHYSICALLY exist in the same place, whether they could capture an audience or not. PAPER is not limited. AIRWAVES are.
FM radio was not at all "suppressed" except by the broadcast "industry". Actually it was, again, the government that unsupressed it, primarily by mandating that AM stations ---which dominated at the time --- could not simply parrot their AM content onto their FM channel; they had to have some amount of different programming. THAT was when FM took off. Like it or not, it was the government that made that happen. Doing its job as the steward of the public airwaves.
Thanks for cleaning it up. Sorry bout that
Wow, this is a mess. I'm gonna clean it up as much as I can but some of the nest will be lost.
See the phrase broadcast license (license is something asked of and then granted by the government, with governments permission to preform.) Which is a violation of the 1st since government is not to be in the business of granting access of who can be the press, wether it's radio, print, tv or whatever.
The license has nothing to do with "who can be the press" at all. The license is for "who may use this designated channel of the public airwaves" --- whatever their purpose in using that channel may be.
Those designated channels are (were at the time of FD's operation) limited. There were, say, twenty available channels for a given city, and when they were spoken for, there are no more. That's not true of newspapers. Completely different thing. Hence the regulations curbing monopoly, inefective though it may have been.
Never said they had to state that it was their own opinion, just that they were not to state their opinion without having the other opinion expressed. This would be like telling a print version of press, they cannot have an op-ed without printing on op-ed with the other point of view. Which would be a violation. It would also be a violation to tell a print newspaper they can only report on cold hard facts and nothing else.
Again, nobody was ever forced to do any such things, but even if they had been --- by your own description it's not suppressing any particular view at all. It's doing the opposite. Therefore you have no violation.
No because you're still forcing people to state views they don't agree with, whether or not they state they are not their own views, they are still forced to say them.
Again -- no, they're not. What it means is that if a broadcast station declares "here's why we think you should vote Yes on referendum X", then somebody else can use those same public airwaves can go on and say "here's why we think you should vote no". And voilà -- you have both views and you can make up your own mind which view makes sense.
The key word, again, is PUBLIC. Think of the broadcast station as the public forum. The FD didn't want the placeholders of that forum to dictate who can say what. Just as the Constitution doesn't want the government to dictate who can say what. Same thing in microcosm.
And that monopoly was started by the government licensing. They regulated and shrunk the field and then had to further regulate it.
There is no "shrinking". Channels of the airwaves were allocated as far as the technology would allow without interference. Before the Federal Radio Commission (precursor of the FCC) anyone could put up a transmitter. And if you put up ten watts I could put up a hundred watts, then you'd put up a thousand and I'd put up ten thousand. It was chaos. Limited space means limited. That's a technical reality.
In fact the argument for dropping the Fairness Doctrine was that that original limitation was far less limited, with FM radio, UHF television, and then cable, and now internet. But in the 1940s that wasn't the case; the technology is by definition limited.
Again no one is being forced to state opposing view points, this site doesn't have to bring in or post an opposing viewpoints, it's done by the volition of those who participate
The site, in this analogy, represents the public forum --- the broadcast spectrum. Consider a blog site then. I write my blogs, and you can't write on it. If the internet allowed a limited number of blog sites and you were too late getting one --- you'd be out of luck. You'd have no outlet. IF that were the case and the Federal Internet Commission declared "since internet space is limited, you have to let Sakinago post comments", then you'd have a voice on that basis.
But the internet is not limited, and there's no such thing as a Federal Internet Commission. This is just another attempt at analogy.
The broadcaster, it's crucial to understand, does not own the airwaves. WE do. That was defined from day one -- that's why they're called the "public airwaves". The broadcaster gets to use those airwaves (for free I might add) at the pleasure of the People. So the FD --- and the Equal Time rule for that matter -- are put there for our protection, to ensure that no broadcaster gets to own the discourse.
This would be like saying, the people own a newspaper, or a certain type of medium, and therefore government is now allowed to regulate how they see fit. This would be a silly concept for newspapers. It turned out to be a silly concept for radio, since the ratings for political talk radio didn't explode until after abolition of fairness doctrine. And government taking control of radio did not help the people, and did not advance radio technology. FM radio was suppressed for many years. And is why government should not be in the business of licensing who says what, through whatever medium.
No it would not. A newspaper is printed on a resource which is not limited. There's no reason two, five, fifteen or 150 newspapers could not PHYSICALLY exist in the same place, whether they could capture an audience or not. PAPER is not limited. AIRWAVES are.
FM radio was not at all "suppressed" except by the broadcast "industry". Actually it was, again, the government that unsupressed it, primarily by mandating that AM stations ---which dominated at the time --- could not simply parrot their AM content onto their FM channel; they had to have some amount of different programming. THAT was when FM took off. Like it or not, it was the government that made that happen. Doing its job as the steward of the public airwaves.
For example: McDonald's could go to politicians and tell them a new fire safety system is best and should be required. McDonald's can afford this new system when the local breakfast joint cant and creates a financial hardship.
yawnYour complete inability to meet the either the letter or the spirit of the OP is noted.
Your post was a strawman. I don't respond to those.I addressed the post you did make. NOthing in your "response" to my post was relevant to anything.
The OP is not about whether you "agree with the left", it is about what the left has done that you support, or have no problem with. Judging from earlier posts and the way you tried to hijack mine, I seriously doubt you could pony up an issue that would be consistent with the thread topic.I posted a real issue that I agree with the Left on.
yawnYour complete inability to meet the either the letter or the spirit of the OP is noted.
Your post was a strawman. I don't respond to those.I addressed the post you did make. NOthing in your "response" to my post was relevant to anything.
The OP is not about whether you "agree with the left", it is about what the left has done that you support, or have no problem with. Judging from earlier posts and the way you tried to hijack mine, I seriously doubt you could pony up an issue that would be consistent with the thread topic.I posted a real issue that I agree with the Left on.
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]"
So am I correct in saying that an opposing view still had to be placed? Whether the broadcaster, station owner, or whatever wanted to, they still had to place that?
Now would you say, in any certain circumstances, would that regulation placed on print paper, be in violation of the 1st amendment?
Hint: operative word is regulation. To regulate is to control, is to restrict, is to abridge.
And you should read the history of RCA, and how that government sanctioned monopoly was able to shut out FM radio for decades. The government created that problem, just because they eventually resolved it does not give them a pass on causing it in the first placed
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]"
So am I correct in saying that an opposing view still had to be placed? Whether the broadcaster, station owner, or whatever wanted to, they still had to place that?
This passage is essentially what I already described --- they had to air some degree of public-interest content (in other words not just money-making sitcoms) and they had to present a range of views.
The crucial phrase is sitting right there, to wit:
"The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views" So this fantasy of having to present both sides of every single issue, wherever you're getting it from, is a myth. As it also says and as I described, "stations were given a wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views".
If you're old enough to remember those weekday evening newscasts by the alphabet TV networks -- the Chet Huntleys, the Walter Cronkites et al --- those were part of this public service content requirement. They weren't required to do news per se but that was one way to show that they were providing that content. And those newscasts were entirely subsidized by the mindless sitcoms that followed them (news is expensive to do). But having such a newscast looks good for the public service content.
Note that there's nothing in there dictating HOW they should present that news. Or that they should present news at all. Just a guideline to provide public interest content --- as above, "It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials". As well as the farm market report and the city council meeting mentioned earlier.
Now would you say, in any certain circumstances, would that regulation placed on print paper, be in violation of the 1st amendment?
Of course not. A violation of 1A on a newspaper would be a mandate that the paper could not express a particular opinion. There's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that says you can't express a particular opinion. At all.
This question is moot since, as I KNOW I already pointed out, broadcast space is a different animal from newspapers or magazines. There is no practical limitation on how much paper is available to print a paper or magazine. That is *NOT* true of broadcast space. IF broadcast space had been infinite, where anyone who wanted to have a station could have one ---- then there would have been no need for a Fairness Doctrine. You would just go on the air and speak your mind about how Channel 5's editorial is wrongheaded.
But that's not a world that exists.
And I might add, since I forgot to earlier, commentators on radio didn't need the Fairness Doctrine to go away in order to exist. Ever hear of Charles Coughlin? Aimee Semple McPherson? Paul Harvey? Bob Grant? Fulton Sheen? All flourished during the run of the Fairness Doctrine.
Hint: operative word is regulation. To regulate is to control, is to restrict, is to abridge.
To regulate is to control but in this case the control is against the inclination to monopoly. And that "abridges" and "restricts" nothing. You can't "restrict" something that does not exist.
And you should read the history of RCA, and how that government sanctioned monopoly was able to shut out FM radio for decades. The government created that problem, just because they eventually resolved it does not give them a pass on causing it in the first placed
RCA (read: David Sarnoff) had a personal grudge against Edwin Armstrong (inventor of FM and his former employee) and coerced the government to change the frequency band to undercut Armstrong's plans and cost him huge amounts of invested money (which led to his suicide). I don't need to "read" that story; I know it quite well thank you. I've been into radio literally for all my life. And it wasn't going on for "decades" either.
That's why we never had a "channel 1" on the TV band btw. We originally had one allocated, and it was reallocated to FM service. Government didn't create that problem --- David Sarnoff did. In fact as soon as news of Armstong's suicide broke, Sarnoff publicly declared "I did not kill Armstrong". Because even then he knew where the finger would point after their history.
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]"
So am I correct in saying that an opposing view still had to be placed? Whether the broadcaster, station owner, or whatever wanted to, they still had to place that?
This passage is essentially what I already described --- they had to air some degree of public-interest content (in other words not just money-making sitcoms) and they had to present a range of views.
The crucial phrase is sitting right there, to wit:
"The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views" So this fantasy of having to present both sides of every single issue, wherever you're getting it from, is a myth. As it also says and as I described, "stations were given a wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views".
If you're old enough to remember those weekday evening newscasts by the alphabet TV networks -- the Chet Huntleys, the Walter Cronkites et al --- those were part of this public service content requirement. They weren't required to do news per se but that was one way to show that they were providing that content. And those newscasts were entirely subsidized by the mindless sitcoms that followed them (news is expensive to do). But having such a newscast looks good for the public service content.
Note that there's nothing in there dictating HOW they should present that news. Or that they should present news at all. Just a guideline to provide public interest content --- as above, "It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials". As well as the farm market report and the city council meeting mentioned earlier.
Now would you say, in any certain circumstances, would that regulation placed on print paper, be in violation of the 1st amendment?
Of course not. A violation of 1A on a newspaper would be a mandate that the paper could not express a particular opinion. There's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that says you can't express a particular opinion. At all.
This question is moot since, as I KNOW I already pointed out, broadcast space is a different animal from newspapers or magazines. There is no practical limitation on how much paper is available to print a paper or magazine. That is *NOT* true of broadcast space. IF broadcast space had been infinite, where anyone who wanted to have a station could have one ---- then there would have been no need for a Fairness Doctrine. You would just go on the air and speak your mind about how Channel 5's editorial is wrongheaded.
But that's not a world that exists.
And I might add, since I forgot to earlier, commentators on radio didn't need the Fairness Doctrine to go away in order to exist. Ever hear of Charles Coughlin? Aimee Semple McPherson? Paul Harvey? Bob Grant? Fulton Sheen? All flourished during the run of the Fairness Doctrine.
Hint: operative word is regulation. To regulate is to control, is to restrict, is to abridge.
To regulate is to control but in this case the control is against the inclination to monopoly. And that "abridges" and "restricts" nothing. You can't "restrict" something that does not exist.
And you should read the history of RCA, and how that government sanctioned monopoly was able to shut out FM radio for decades. The government created that problem, just because they eventually resolved it does not give them a pass on causing it in the first placed
RCA (read: David Sarnoff) had a personal grudge against Edwin Armstrong (inventor of FM and his former employee) and coerced the government to change the frequency band to undercut Armstrong's plans and cost him huge amounts of invested money (which led to his suicide). I don't need to "read" that story; I know it quite well thank you. I've been into radio literally for all my life. And it wasn't going on for "decades" either.
That's why we never had a "channel 1" on the TV band btw. We originally had one allocated, and it was reallocated to FM service. Government didn't create that problem --- David Sarnoff did. In fact as soon as news of Armstong's suicide broke, Sarnoff publicly declared "I did not kill Armstrong". Because even then he knew where the finger would point after their history.
A famous and revered image:
-- that's Edwin Armstrong's original FM broadcast tower in Alpine New Jersey. Still standing and radiating to this day. I've passed it many a time.
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]"
So am I correct in saying that an opposing view still had to be placed? Whether the broadcaster, station owner, or whatever wanted to, they still had to place that?
This passage is essentially what I already described --- they had to air some degree of public-interest content (in other words not just money-making sitcoms) and they had to present a range of views.
The crucial phrase is sitting right there, to wit:
"The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views" So this fantasy of having to present both sides of every single issue, wherever you're getting it from, is a myth. As it also says and as I described, "stations were given a wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views".
If you're old enough to remember those weekday evening newscasts by the alphabet TV networks -- the Chet Huntleys, the Walter Cronkites et al --- those were part of this public service content requirement. They weren't required to do news per se but that was one way to show that they were providing that content. And those newscasts were entirely subsidized by the mindless sitcoms that followed them (news is expensive to do). But having such a newscast looks good for the public service content.
Note that there's nothing in there dictating HOW they should present that news. Or that they should present news at all. Just a guideline to provide public interest content --- as above, "It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials". As well as the farm market report and the city council meeting mentioned earlier.
Now would you say, in any certain circumstances, would that regulation placed on print paper, be in violation of the 1st amendment?
Of course not. A violation of 1A on a newspaper would be a mandate that the paper could not express a particular opinion. There's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that says you can't express a particular opinion. At all.
This question is moot since, as I KNOW I already pointed out, broadcast space is a different animal from newspapers or magazines. There is no practical limitation on how much paper is available to print a paper or magazine. That is *NOT* true of broadcast space. IF broadcast space had been infinite, where anyone who wanted to have a station could have one ---- then there would have been no need for a Fairness Doctrine. You would just go on the air and speak your mind about how Channel 5's editorial is wrongheaded.
But that's not a world that exists.
And I might add, since I forgot to earlier, commentators on radio didn't need the Fairness Doctrine to go away in order to exist. Ever hear of Charles Coughlin? Aimee Semple McPherson? Paul Harvey? Bob Grant? Fulton Sheen? All flourished during the run of the Fairness Doctrine.
Hint: operative word is regulation. To regulate is to control, is to restrict, is to abridge.
To regulate is to control but in this case the control is against the inclination to monopoly. And that "abridges" and "restricts" nothing. You can't "restrict" something that does not exist.
And you should read the history of RCA, and how that government sanctioned monopoly was able to shut out FM radio for decades. The government created that problem, just because they eventually resolved it does not give them a pass on causing it in the first placed
RCA (read: David Sarnoff) had a personal grudge against Edwin Armstrong (inventor of FM and his former employee) and coerced the government to change the frequency band to undercut Armstrong's plans and cost him huge amounts of invested money (which led to his suicide). I don't need to "read" that story; I know it quite well thank you. I've been into radio literally for all my life. And it wasn't going on for "decades" either.
That's why we never had a "channel 1" on the TV band btw. We originally had one allocated, and it was reallocated to FM service. Government didn't create that problem --- David Sarnoff did. In fact as soon as news of Armstong's suicide broke, Sarnoff publicly declared "I did not kill Armstrong". Because even then he knew where the finger would point after their history.
A famous and revered image:
-- that's Edwin Armstrong's original FM broadcast tower in Alpine New Jersey. Still standing and radiating to this day. I've passed it many a time.
My condolences for the amount of time you have apparently spent in Jersey.
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]"
So am I correct in saying that an opposing view still had to be placed? Whether the broadcaster, station owner, or whatever wanted to, they still had to place that?
This passage is essentially what I already described --- they had to air some degree of public-interest content (in other words not just money-making sitcoms) and they had to present a range of views.
The crucial phrase is sitting right there, to wit:
"The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views" So this fantasy of having to present both sides of every single issue, wherever you're getting it from, is a myth. As it also says and as I described, "stations were given a wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views".
If you're old enough to remember those weekday evening newscasts by the alphabet TV networks -- the Chet Huntleys, the Walter Cronkites et al --- those were part of this public service content requirement. They weren't required to do news per se but that was one way to show that they were providing that content. And those newscasts were entirely subsidized by the mindless sitcoms that followed them (news is expensive to do). But having such a newscast looks good for the public service content.
Note that there's nothing in there dictating HOW they should present that news. Or that they should present news at all. Just a guideline to provide public interest content --- as above, "It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials". As well as the farm market report and the city council meeting mentioned earlier.
Now would you say, in any certain circumstances, would that regulation placed on print paper, be in violation of the 1st amendment?
Of course not. A violation of 1A on a newspaper would be a mandate that the paper could not express a particular opinion. There's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that says you can't express a particular opinion. At all.
This question is moot since, as I KNOW I already pointed out, broadcast space is a different animal from newspapers or magazines. There is no practical limitation on how much paper is available to print a paper or magazine. That is *NOT* true of broadcast space. IF broadcast space had been infinite, where anyone who wanted to have a station could have one ---- then there would have been no need for a Fairness Doctrine. You would just go on the air and speak your mind about how Channel 5's editorial is wrongheaded.
But that's not a world that exists.
And I might add, since I forgot to earlier, commentators on radio didn't need the Fairness Doctrine to go away in order to exist. Ever hear of Charles Coughlin? Aimee Semple McPherson? Paul Harvey? Bob Grant? Fulton Sheen? All flourished during the run of the Fairness Doctrine.
Hint: operative word is regulation. To regulate is to control, is to restrict, is to abridge.
To regulate is to control but in this case the control is against the inclination to monopoly. And that "abridges" and "restricts" nothing. You can't "restrict" something that does not exist.
And you should read the history of RCA, and how that government sanctioned monopoly was able to shut out FM radio for decades. The government created that problem, just because they eventually resolved it does not give them a pass on causing it in the first placed
RCA (read: David Sarnoff) had a personal grudge against Edwin Armstrong (inventor of FM and his former employee) and coerced the government to change the frequency band to undercut Armstrong's plans and cost him huge amounts of invested money (which led to his suicide). I don't need to "read" that story; I know it quite well thank you. I've been into radio literally for all my life. And it wasn't going on for "decades" either.
That's why we never had a "channel 1" on the TV band btw. We originally had one allocated, and it was reallocated to FM service. Government didn't create that problem --- David Sarnoff did. In fact as soon as news of Armstong's suicide broke, Sarnoff publicly declared "I did not kill Armstrong". Because even then he knew where the finger would point after their history.
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]"
So am I correct in saying that an opposing view still had to be placed? Whether the broadcaster, station owner, or whatever wanted to, they still had to place that?
This passage is essentially what I already described --- they had to air some degree of public-interest content (in other words not just money-making sitcoms) and they had to present a range of views.
The crucial phrase is sitting right there, to wit:
"The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views" So this fantasy of having to present both sides of every single issue, wherever you're getting it from, is a myth. As it also says and as I described, "stations were given a wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views".
If you're old enough to remember those weekday evening newscasts by the alphabet TV networks -- the Chet Huntleys, the Walter Cronkites et al --- those were part of this public service content requirement. They weren't required to do news per se but that was one way to show that they were providing that content. And those newscasts were entirely subsidized by the mindless sitcoms that followed them (news is expensive to do). But having such a newscast looks good for the public service content.
Note that there's nothing in there dictating HOW they should present that news. Or that they should present news at all. Just a guideline to provide public interest content --- as above, "It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials". As well as the farm market report and the city council meeting mentioned earlier.
Now would you say, in any certain circumstances, would that regulation placed on print paper, be in violation of the 1st amendment?
Of course not. A violation of 1A on a newspaper would be a mandate that the paper could not express a particular opinion. There's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that says you can't express a particular opinion. At all.
This question is moot since, as I KNOW I already pointed out, broadcast space is a different animal from newspapers or magazines. There is no practical limitation on how much paper is available to print a paper or magazine. That is *NOT* true of broadcast space. IF broadcast space had been infinite, where anyone who wanted to have a station could have one ---- then there would have been no need for a Fairness Doctrine. You would just go on the air and speak your mind about how Channel 5's editorial is wrongheaded.
But that's not a world that exists.
And I might add, since I forgot to earlier, commentators on radio didn't need the Fairness Doctrine to go away in order to exist. Ever hear of Charles Coughlin? Aimee Semple McPherson? Paul Harvey? Bob Grant? Fulton Sheen? All flourished during the run of the Fairness Doctrine.
Hint: operative word is regulation. To regulate is to control, is to restrict, is to abridge.
To regulate is to control but in this case the control is against the inclination to monopoly. And that "abridges" and "restricts" nothing. You can't "restrict" something that does not exist.
And you should read the history of RCA, and how that government sanctioned monopoly was able to shut out FM radio for decades. The government created that problem, just because they eventually resolved it does not give them a pass on causing it in the first placed
RCA (read: David Sarnoff) had a personal grudge against Edwin Armstrong (inventor of FM and his former employee) and coerced the government to change the frequency band to undercut Armstrong's plans and cost him huge amounts of invested money (which led to his suicide). I don't need to "read" that story; I know it quite well thank you. I've been into radio literally for all my life. And it wasn't going on for "decades" either.
That's why we never had a "channel 1" on the TV band btw. We originally had one allocated, and it was reallocated to FM service. Government didn't create that problem --- David Sarnoff did. In fact as soon as news of Armstong's suicide broke, Sarnoff publicly declared "I did not kill Armstrong". Because even then he knew where the finger would point after their history.
The limitation exist where you cannot vocalize you're opinion, unless you have expressed the oppositions opinion in one form or another. Is that correct?
Sorry for the brevity of my responses, I'm out right now and not trying to seem rude
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]"
So am I correct in saying that an opposing view still had to be placed? Whether the broadcaster, station owner, or whatever wanted to, they still had to place that?
This passage is essentially what I already described --- they had to air some degree of public-interest content (in other words not just money-making sitcoms) and they had to present a range of views.
The crucial phrase is sitting right there, to wit:
"The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views" So this fantasy of having to present both sides of every single issue, wherever you're getting it from, is a myth. As it also says and as I described, "stations were given a wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views".
If you're old enough to remember those weekday evening newscasts by the alphabet TV networks -- the Chet Huntleys, the Walter Cronkites et al --- those were part of this public service content requirement. They weren't required to do news per se but that was one way to show that they were providing that content. And those newscasts were entirely subsidized by the mindless sitcoms that followed them (news is expensive to do). But having such a newscast looks good for the public service content.
Note that there's nothing in there dictating HOW they should present that news. Or that they should present news at all. Just a guideline to provide public interest content --- as above, "It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials". As well as the farm market report and the city council meeting mentioned earlier.
Now would you say, in any certain circumstances, would that regulation placed on print paper, be in violation of the 1st amendment?
Of course not. A violation of 1A on a newspaper would be a mandate that the paper could not express a particular opinion. There's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that says you can't express a particular opinion. At all.
This question is moot since, as I KNOW I already pointed out, broadcast space is a different animal from newspapers or magazines. There is no practical limitation on how much paper is available to print a paper or magazine. That is *NOT* true of broadcast space. IF broadcast space had been infinite, where anyone who wanted to have a station could have one ---- then there would have been no need for a Fairness Doctrine. You would just go on the air and speak your mind about how Channel 5's editorial is wrongheaded.
But that's not a world that exists.
And I might add, since I forgot to earlier, commentators on radio didn't need the Fairness Doctrine to go away in order to exist. Ever hear of Charles Coughlin? Aimee Semple McPherson? Paul Harvey? Bob Grant? Fulton Sheen? All flourished during the run of the Fairness Doctrine.
Hint: operative word is regulation. To regulate is to control, is to restrict, is to abridge.
To regulate is to control but in this case the control is against the inclination to monopoly. And that "abridges" and "restricts" nothing. You can't "restrict" something that does not exist.
And you should read the history of RCA, and how that government sanctioned monopoly was able to shut out FM radio for decades. The government created that problem, just because they eventually resolved it does not give them a pass on causing it in the first placed
RCA (read: David Sarnoff) had a personal grudge against Edwin Armstrong (inventor of FM and his former employee) and coerced the government to change the frequency band to undercut Armstrong's plans and cost him huge amounts of invested money (which led to his suicide). I don't need to "read" that story; I know it quite well thank you. I've been into radio literally for all my life. And it wasn't going on for "decades" either.
That's why we never had a "channel 1" on the TV band btw. We originally had one allocated, and it was reallocated to FM service. Government didn't create that problem --- David Sarnoff did. In fact as soon as news of Armstong's suicide broke, Sarnoff publicly declared "I did not kill Armstrong". Because even then he knew where the finger would point after their history.
The limitation exist where you cannot vocalize you're opinion, unless you have expressed the oppositions opinion in one form or another. Is that correct?
Sorry for the brevity of my responses, I'm out right now and not trying to seem rude
No, not correct. For the third time in a row --- "The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views" I don't know where you're getting this idea from but you need to let it go. It's a myth.
Take your time, no rudeness perceived. There's no time limit.
