"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