"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"John Figliozzi" wrote in message
...

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view.

As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource.

Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate.

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate.

OK, how about one paper towns? Would it be a good idea for the government
to ensure that the opponents of the editorial policy of the paper in a one
paper town got their own space in that paper?

You keep missing one point. Even in one-paper towns, the acquisition of this paper
is still attached to the exchange of merchandise for consideration (the paper's sale
price). And in this instance, it doesn't take a contrary view to use a newspaper to
spread the word (and the paper may actually help in publishing a letter to the
paper's editors) since all it takes is for the dissenter to hire a printer to publish
that view to be distributed independent of the paper. This model is not possible in
a broadcasting model.

And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

Maybe so, but it's clear you don't understand broadcast policy and spectrum
management.

Politics in the US seems to be going through an unusually nasty period
lately. I have no doubt the Republicans and the Democrats would be actively
searching out or creating local pressure groups, in order to push media
stations around. Maybe I'm wrong about that and my opinion of the likely
politicization of the fairness doctrine just reflects the lower regard that
I've developed for both parties over the last 20 years. But I honestly
think any attempt to revive the fairness doctrine is going to turn into a
real can of snakes. Better to leave bad enough alone.

Politics has gotten this way BECAUSE the FCC has left "bad enough alone". There's a
psychological effect that comes from people who associate only with others holding
similar views, where after a time everyone involved comes away with an even more
emphatically-held view of those issues. It's called group polarisation. If you want
politics to climb down from this precipice, then you should support the
reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. And run the likes of FOX News out of Dodge,
or fine them out of existence. It's their transgressions which have made a bad
situation worse.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-