"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. It gave alternative
points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely
lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the
tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on
the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a
travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept
agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and
centered.

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. Would we
be
better off if they were licensed? Justifications could be manufactured.
They use paper from trees grown on public land. They are transported on
public roads. Would newspapers serve us better if we gave the
government
the right to change their ownership or shut them down?

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate. Have
never been
(although USA Today comes close, if they had no other local competition)
and probably
never will. So your argument breaks down around your presumption.

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?



And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

How would the new fairness doctrine keep the political partisans and
kooks
from harassing media stations with nusiance complaints? Who would
define
what a nuisance complaint is?

"Responsible" spokespersons were, in the past, either sober citizens (and
some maybe
not so sober) and representatives of community organisations, when I
worked in radio.
The management would, in the interests of diversity, bring in the
occasional citizen
who would espouse a view quite contrary to the company's. In any event,
management
was capable of keeping the occasional raving lunatic off the air...unless
the raving
lunatic succeeded in being entertaining enough that management would let
him on, if
only to embarrass him.

And public files are thick with nuisance complaints. Why would you think
that a
broadcaster should be immune to them? No need to restrict. Bring 'em on.


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.

Frank Dresser

"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!-

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"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.

Not possible in broadcasting? There's no brokered stations anywhere?

Anyway, since there's more than one media to fight a disagreeable newspaper,
an opponent might use a different media. Buy time on a radio or TV station.
Start a letter writing campaign. Annoy people over the phone. Put up some
billboards.



And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

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

There's a whole world of things I don't understand. That's why I ask so
many questions!


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".

Actually, I think US politics is reverting to it's normal nastiness. The
post WW2 political era was unusally calm, but that started falling apart in
the sixties, and it took a big hit in the Watergate era. The trend has
solidified in the last 20 years. We still may decline further. We haven't
had a fistfight in Congress for a while.

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.

Ah, is that who the fairness doctrine is supposed to serve? People who
associate only with others holding similiar views? Well, I was sure you
didn't need the fairness doctrine in order to think straight, and I'm pretty
sure I don't, either. I'm glad I have that question answered.

But aren't these just the sort of people who would follow their favorite
propaganda outlets to cable or satellite radio when the fairness doctrine is
reintroduced?

If the fairness doctrine serves American society, shouldn't it cover all
media outlets?


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.

I suppose FOX could herd their news operation from Dodge to cable. Their
fans would follow them, and FOX news would do just fine.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message

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.


I suppose FOX could herd their news operation from Dodge to cable. Their
fans would follow them, and FOX news would do just fine.

Isn't Fox News only on cable anyway?

"Charles Hobbs" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message

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.


I suppose FOX could herd their news operation from Dodge to cable. Their
fans would follow them, and FOX news would do just fine.

Isn't Fox News only on cable anyway?

Doesn't FOX also have a broadcast division, which affiliates pick up? Or is that
Sinclair? I don't know, as I don't watch the Fox station here, which is owned by
Sinclair. All I know is that what used to be a fairly decent newscast has now been
taken over by the parent company's agenda, making the national segment of this
newscast worthless.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

Doesn't FOX also have a broadcast division, which affiliates pick up?

The Fox O&O in Boston runs local news, but I've never seen a Fox news operation
other than cable (and the Boston station occasionally picks up actualities from
them, but not whole newscasts).