In response to Mac 1958 s thread regarding partisanship.

[Billo_Really]

"Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with."


In the spirit of reducing partisanship.

I put forth one that I support. Seriously.

This is from your post, where you supposedly supported their action.


"able to recruit (and organize) so many mentally (and socially) incapable idiots thinking they have what it takes to run this country."

It's the communication infrastructure they've created that I admire, not the message they are communicating or the people they are communicating to.

It is interesting to note, in a thread designed to find a common ground between the left and the right without all the vitriol, I find myself arguing with a piece of shit like you.

You could've just stated that "one" you support and left it at that; but you had to go attack me with some bullshit strawman about how I should've included CNN and the BBC in a post about right wing media. People like you show, in post after post, you have no interest in finding a common ground.

 

[Montrovant]

"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.

That's part of my secret route for travelling from PA to New England, without having to deal with Noo Yawk.

Also cheap gas.

That tower btw was the destination point for a lot of major NYC stations when they lost their facility on top of the World Trade Center on 9/11. From the top you can see all the way to Long Island. And it's 80 years old this year.

If you're trying to avoid Manhattan, I can't blame you. I'm originally from Long Island and I've never liked the city.

Hating on Jersey (and being a fan of the Islanders) are about the only things I really took from New York.

 

[Pogo]

"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.

That's part of my secret route for travelling from PA to New England, without having to deal with Noo Yawk.

Also cheap gas.

That tower btw was the destination point for a lot of major NYC stations when they lost their facility on top of the World Trade Center on 9/11. From the top you can see all the way to Long Island. And it's 80 years old this year.

If you're trying to avoid Manhattan, I can't blame you. I'm originally from Long Island and I've never liked the city.

Hating on Jersey (and being a fan of the Islanders) are about the only things I really took from New York.

I grew up in PA so we share that. Not so much "hate" as "pity".

I hate to deal with traffic, so I would take some secondary but fast highways up along that site (Alpine), then over the Tappan Zee and up Saw Mill Parkway. Ta hell with that Cross Bronx Expressway and all that.

At one time I drove to Manhattan twice a week in a truck. But I was up there by 6am and out right away.

 

[Pogo]

"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.

But it did require the opposing view. In whatever form.

During fairness doctrine a network could never state one view, WITHOUT offering an opposing. Correct?

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

 

[sakinago]

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.


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.


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.


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.

That's part of my secret route for travelling from PA to New England, without having to deal with Noo Yawk.

Also cheap gas.

That tower btw was the destination point for a lot of major NYC stations when they lost their facility on top of the World Trade Center on 9/11. From the top you can see all the way to Long Island. And it's 80 years old this year.

If you're trying to avoid Manhattan, I can't blame you. I'm originally from Long Island and I've never liked the city.

Hating on Jersey (and being a fan of the Islanders) are about the only things I really took from New York.

I grew up in PA so we share that. Not so much "hate" as "pity".

I hate to deal with traffic, so I would take some secondary but fast highways up along that site (Alpine), then over the Tappan Zee and up Saw Mill Parkway. Ta hell with that Cross Bronx Expressway and all that.

At one time I drove to Manhattan twice a week in a truck. But I was up there by 6am and out right away.

Ah no shit, I pity jersey as well. Didn't grow up here, and also not a huge fan of PA either.

 

[sakinago]

"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.

But it did require the opposing view. In whatever form.

During fairness doctrine a network could never state one view, WITHOUT offering an opposing. Correct?

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

So, just to be clear, obviously there's a misinterpretation, a network could state one opinion/view/analysis and NOT have to in any way shape or form state an opposing opinion/view/analysis. Say rush Limbaugh could go on and on and on, on whatever network, and that network would have zero obligation to air anything else besides rushs one sided comments?

 

[Pogo]

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.


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.


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.


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.

But it did require the opposing view. In whatever form.

During fairness doctrine a network could never state one view, WITHOUT offering an opposing. Correct?

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

So, just to be clear, obviously there's a misinterpretation, a network could state one opinion/view/analysis and NOT have to in any way shape or form state an opposing opinion/view/analysis. Say rush Limbaugh could go on and on and on, on whatever network, and that network would have zero obligation to air anything else besides rushs one sided comments?

That's not the same thing you just said.

Movin' movin' movin'.... keep them goalposts movin'.....

Besides which--- Lush Rimjob deals in personal attacks. Those would, and always were, open to response by the attacked party (see previous entry on Joe McCarthy).

Matter of fact Limblob took off specifically exactly at the same time that that provision for response to personal attack was done away with when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Which your previous Wikipedia quote also indicated.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The two sides have gone to extreme
The right has become anti-government and anti-investment to the point where if ever put into place would turn this country into a third world country.
The left has turned into the social issue nut party....

Both don't really care about the worker. I'd say the right is worse but the left hasn't cared about the worker in at least 30 years.

 

[Billo_Really]

Movin' movin' movin'.... keep them goalposts movin'.....

.....rawhide!........in any kind of weather............ mayonnaise and leather.....soon they'll be chisom by you side!

Don't ask me what that all means or how it relates, I just felt I needed to share.

 

[sakinago]

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.

But it did require the opposing view. In whatever form.

During fairness doctrine a network could never state one view, WITHOUT offering an opposing. Correct?

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

So, just to be clear, obviously there's a misinterpretation, a network could state one opinion/view/analysis and NOT have to in any way shape or form state an opposing opinion/view/analysis. Say rush Limbaugh could go on and on and on, on whatever network, and that network would have zero obligation to air anything else besides rushs one sided comments?

That's not the same thing you just said.

Movin' movin' movin'.... keep them goalposts movin'.....

Besides which--- Lush Rimjob deals in personal attacks. Those would, and always were, open to response by the attacked party (see previous entry on Joe McCarthy).

Matter of fact Limblob took off specifically exactly at the same time that that provision for response to personal attack was done away with when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Which your previous Wikipedia quote also indicated.

No no no, zero goal post have been moved pogo, this is the exact goal post my point has been standing on. And I threw in rush because he was a nice chubby piece of bait haha. And the fact that he blew up after adds to my point. If there was no infringement...what caused his rise? Surely there must have been something impeding his way, some sort of government regulation on free speech/press that stopped rush from gobbling up the ears of senior citizens all across the nation?

Could a network ever air rush, and then move on to top 40 radio (not that this is a viable radio setup) without any sort of requirement to air anything in response?

 

[Pogo]

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.

But it did require the opposing view. In whatever form.

During fairness doctrine a network could never state one view, WITHOUT offering an opposing. Correct?

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

So, just to be clear, obviously there's a misinterpretation, a network could state one opinion/view/analysis and NOT have to in any way shape or form state an opposing opinion/view/analysis. Say rush Limbaugh could go on and on and on, on whatever network, and that network would have zero obligation to air anything else besides rushs one sided comments?

That's not the same thing you just said.

Movin' movin' movin'.... keep them goalposts movin'.....

Besides which--- Lush Rimjob deals in personal attacks. Those would, and always were, open to response by the attacked party (see previous entry on Joe McCarthy).

Matter of fact Limblob took off specifically exactly at the same time that that provision for response to personal attack was done away with when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Which your previous Wikipedia quote also indicated.

No no no, zero goal post have been moved pogo, this is the exact goal post my point has been standing on. And I threw in rush because he was a nice chubby piece of bait haha. And the fact that he blew up after adds to my point. If there was no infringement...what caused his rise? Surely there must have been something impeding his way, some sort of government regulation on free speech/press that stopped rush from gobbling up the ears of senior citizens all across the nation?

Could a network ever air rush, and then move on to top 40 radio (not that this is a viable radio setup) without any sort of requirement to air anything in response?

I just TOLD you what caused his rise. Guess I'll have to repeat it. Limblob deals in personal attack. Under the old FD rules he would have had to provide equal time for a response if the injured party requested it. You know, just as if I posted "Sakinago is an asshole" I'd have to expect a response. And rightly so.

Now suddenly, 1990 or so ---- he's off the hook. Responsibility-free. Which is right about the time the FD was abolished. And consequently, again as your own Wiki quote also notes, that's when political polarization started intensifying. Now he can personal-attack anybody, and never has to allow a response. Hence --- slutgate.

He could have done the same thing before with the FD --- but he'd have to allow his targets to respond. And you know how he is about letting anyone respond. He can't handle it. So it was never a law restricting him --- it was his own shallow limitation. He can't function except as a monologue.

 

[sakinago]

But it did require the opposing view. In whatever form.

During fairness doctrine a network could never state one view, WITHOUT offering an opposing. Correct?

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

So, just to be clear, obviously there's a misinterpretation, a network could state one opinion/view/analysis and NOT have to in any way shape or form state an opposing opinion/view/analysis. Say rush Limbaugh could go on and on and on, on whatever network, and that network would have zero obligation to air anything else besides rushs one sided comments?

That's not the same thing you just said.

Movin' movin' movin'.... keep them goalposts movin'.....

Besides which--- Lush Rimjob deals in personal attacks. Those would, and always were, open to response by the attacked party (see previous entry on Joe McCarthy).

Matter of fact Limblob took off specifically exactly at the same time that that provision for response to personal attack was done away with when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Which your previous Wikipedia quote also indicated.

No no no, zero goal post have been moved pogo, this is the exact goal post my point has been standing on. And I threw in rush because he was a nice chubby piece of bait haha. And the fact that he blew up after adds to my point. If there was no infringement...what caused his rise? Surely there must have been something impeding his way, some sort of government regulation on free speech/press that stopped rush from gobbling up the ears of senior citizens all across the nation?

Could a network ever air rush, and then move on to top 40 radio (not that this is a viable radio setup) without any sort of requirement to air anything in response?

I just TOLD you what caused his rise. Guess I'll have to repeat it. Limblob deals in personal attack. Under the old FD rules he would have had to provide equal time for a response if the injured party requested it. You know, just as if I posted "Sakinago is an asshole" I'd have to expect a response. And rightly so.

Now suddenly, 1990 or so ---- he's off the hook. Responsibility-free. Which is right about the time the FD was abolished. And consequently, again as your own Wiki quote also notes, that's when political polarization started intensifying. Now he can personal-attack anybody, and never has to allow a response. Hence --- slutgate.

He could have done the same thing before with the FD --- but he'd have to allow his targets to respond. And you know how he is about letting anyone respond. He can't handle it. So it was never a law restricting him --- it was his own shallow limitation. He can't function except as a monologue.

Mmmhmm, so if say a hypothetical lush rimbaugh wanted to go on and on about how bad trump is, he could do so without any sort of recourse or obligation on the networks side to offer up a half hearted 10 second, maybe even satirical rebuttal. There's zero obligation there?

 

[sakinago]

But it did require the opposing view. In whatever form.

During fairness doctrine a network could never state one view, WITHOUT offering an opposing. Correct?

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

So, just to be clear, obviously there's a misinterpretation, a network could state one opinion/view/analysis and NOT have to in any way shape or form state an opposing opinion/view/analysis. Say rush Limbaugh could go on and on and on, on whatever network, and that network would have zero obligation to air anything else besides rushs one sided comments?

That's not the same thing you just said.

Movin' movin' movin'.... keep them goalposts movin'.....

Besides which--- Lush Rimjob deals in personal attacks. Those would, and always were, open to response by the attacked party (see previous entry on Joe McCarthy).

Matter of fact Limblob took off specifically exactly at the same time that that provision for response to personal attack was done away with when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Which your previous Wikipedia quote also indicated.

No no no, zero goal post have been moved pogo, this is the exact goal post my point has been standing on. And I threw in rush because he was a nice chubby piece of bait haha. And the fact that he blew up after adds to my point. If there was no infringement...what caused his rise? Surely there must have been something impeding his way, some sort of government regulation on free speech/press that stopped rush from gobbling up the ears of senior citizens all across the nation?

Could a network ever air rush, and then move on to top 40 radio (not that this is a viable radio setup) without any sort of requirement to air anything in response?

I just TOLD you what caused his rise. Guess I'll have to repeat it. Limblob deals in personal attack. Under the old FD rules he would have had to provide equal time for a response if the injured party requested it. You know, just as if I posted "Sakinago is an asshole" I'd have to expect a response. And rightly so.

Now suddenly, 1990 or so ---- he's off the hook. Responsibility-free. Which is right about the time the FD was abolished. And consequently, again as your own Wiki quote also notes, that's when political polarization started intensifying. Now he can personal-attack anybody, and never has to allow a response. Hence --- slutgate.

He could have done the same thing before with the FD --- but he'd have to allow his targets to respond. And you know how he is about letting anyone respond. He can't handle it. So it was never a law restricting him --- it was his own shallow limitation. He can't function except as a monologue.

And I should be getting to bed now pogo, but you've put up a good defense. You're still arguing uphill since the government is still was regulating a private entity to include speech they may or may not have in the first place...which was my original goalpost. Have a good night, I'll probably continue on with this tomorrow.

 

[Pogo]

NO. INCORRECT.

This is I think five times now. The answer is not going to change.

So, just to be clear, obviously there's a misinterpretation, a network could state one opinion/view/analysis and NOT have to in any way shape or form state an opposing opinion/view/analysis. Say rush Limbaugh could go on and on and on, on whatever network, and that network would have zero obligation to air anything else besides rushs one sided comments?

That's not the same thing you just said.

Movin' movin' movin'.... keep them goalposts movin'.....

Besides which--- Lush Rimjob deals in personal attacks. Those would, and always were, open to response by the attacked party (see previous entry on Joe McCarthy).

Matter of fact Limblob took off specifically exactly at the same time that that provision for response to personal attack was done away with when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Which your previous Wikipedia quote also indicated.

No no no, zero goal post have been moved pogo, this is the exact goal post my point has been standing on. And I threw in rush because he was a nice chubby piece of bait haha. And the fact that he blew up after adds to my point. If there was no infringement...what caused his rise? Surely there must have been something impeding his way, some sort of government regulation on free speech/press that stopped rush from gobbling up the ears of senior citizens all across the nation?

Could a network ever air rush, and then move on to top 40 radio (not that this is a viable radio setup) without any sort of requirement to air anything in response?

I just TOLD you what caused his rise. Guess I'll have to repeat it. Limblob deals in personal attack. Under the old FD rules he would have had to provide equal time for a response if the injured party requested it. You know, just as if I posted "Sakinago is an asshole" I'd have to expect a response. And rightly so.

Now suddenly, 1990 or so ---- he's off the hook. Responsibility-free. Which is right about the time the FD was abolished. And consequently, again as your own Wiki quote also notes, that's when political polarization started intensifying. Now he can personal-attack anybody, and never has to allow a response. Hence --- slutgate.

He could have done the same thing before with the FD --- but he'd have to allow his targets to respond. And you know how he is about letting anyone respond. He can't handle it. So it was never a law restricting him --- it was his own shallow limitation. He can't function except as a monologue.

Mmmhmm, so if say a hypothetical lush rimbaugh wanted to go on and on about how bad trump is, he could do so without any sort of recourse or obligation on the networks side to offer up a half hearted 10 second, maybe even satirical rebuttal. There's zero obligation there?

Today, yes.

In the past? Would it be a personal attack? I presume it would since you describe a hypothetical Lush Rimjob and that's what he does. Well then you're back to Joe McCarthy getting his hour on CBS. The network (station) wouldn't have to do anything proactively --- it would simply be required to provide the air time for response if the injured party requested it. If they didn't request it --- life goes on.

 

[JoeB131]

Again --- BULLSHIT.

Broadcasting is my career. I know this stuff inside and out. I had to know, and supervise, compliance with these laws. You might be conflating your foggy memory with the Fairness Doctrine but that didn't work that way either.

The Equal Time rule applies to political candidates. If channel 5 gives time to Candidate A, then it must make the same time available to Candidate B if B requests it, at the same price. Not some editorial.

My memory isn't faulty. I remember that Channel 5 used to do this until they j ust stopped doing on-air editorials so they wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense anymore. Cue the Water-skiing squirrels... no one can object to that.

You start handing out money to wannabe politicians, you'll have the campus radicals running for office because it's easier than getting a real job. No thank you.

 

[Correll]

"Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with."


In the spirit of reducing partisanship.

I put forth one that I support. Seriously.

This is from your post, where you supposedly supported their action.


"able to recruit (and organize) so many mentally (and socially) incapable idiots thinking they have what it takes to run this country."

It's the communication infrastructure they've created that I admire, not the message they are communicating or the people they are communicating to.

It is interesting to note, in a thread designed to find a common ground between the left and the right without all the vitriol, I find myself arguing with a piece of shit like you.

You could've just stated that "one" you support and left it at that; but you had to go attack me with some bullshit strawman about how I should've included CNN and the BBC in a post about right wing media. People like you show, in post after post, you have no interest in finding a common ground.

Your "admiration" was peppered with vile insults directed at your enemies.

That is not finding "common ground".

That you can't even see that, demonstrates that the problem is you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your "admiration" was peppered with vile insults directed at your enemies.

That is not finding "common ground".

That you can't even see that, demonstrates that the problem is you.

My admiration was not for the vile enemies, but for the infrastructure they created. And you're never going to find common ground if you keep attacking people like you do. The problem is people who poison a kumbaya thread with their partisan vitriol.

 

[Correll]

Your "admiration" was peppered with vile insults directed at your enemies.

That is not finding "common ground".

That you can't even see that, demonstrates that the problem is you.

My admiration was not for the vile enemies, but for the infrastructure they created. And you're never going to find common ground if you keep attacking people like you do. The problem is people who poison a kumbaya thread with their partisan vitriol.

My post of what I agreed with lefties on was completely free of any insults.


You were unable or unwilling to do the same.


You call them "vile enemies" in the same post you accuse ME of bringing partisan vitriol into a "kumbaya thread".


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

 

[Pogo]

Again --- BULLSHIT.

Broadcasting is my career. I know this stuff inside and out. I had to know, and supervise, compliance with these laws. You might be conflating your foggy memory with the Fairness Doctrine but that didn't work that way either.

The Equal Time rule applies to political candidates. If channel 5 gives time to Candidate A, then it must make the same time available to Candidate B if B requests it, at the same price. Not some editorial.

My memory isn't faulty. I remember that Channel 5 used to do this until they j ust stopped doing on-air editorials so they wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense anymore. Cue the Water-skiing squirrels... no one can object to that.

You start handing out money to wannabe politicians, you'll have the campus radicals running for office because it's easier than getting a real job. No thank you.

I wooden know what "channel 5" DID but whatever it was in no way means they were required to do so by law. Perhaps they ran "Gilligan's Island" too ----- doesn't mean they were forced.

The Equal Time rule applies to political candidates. If candidate Boris Badenov bought time on Channel 5, then his rival Georgy Goodenov had to get the same deal. And if they gave Badenov a discount because they liked him, they had to give Goodenov the same deal. That's all there is to it.