"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...


Never mind the rest of it....here's the deal. As I've said elsewhere, the
reason for
the Fairness Doctrine is due to the fact that broadcast spectrum is a
limited
commodity, where the existence of one station eliminates the possibility
that another
can be in the same area on the same channel (and a few adjacent, too).
This hard,
physical limitation means that there is no opportunity for a diversity of
voices...unlike the printed word, where all it takes to get your opinions
out is a
printing press and a ream of paper.

I live in a big city. The radio spectrum here is saturated, and I don't
think it would be much more diverse if there were an infinate number of
possible stations.


The Fairness Doctrine simply encouraged (even
coerced) broadcasters to air opinion/issue programming, and provide an
opportunity
for those in dissent to provide their opposing view...analogous to
"sharing" the
printing press.

It discouraged political programming in the sense that it forced opposing
viewpoints. No political programming is easier than trying to strike a
subjective balance.

There was alot of bad radio forced on the public during the fairness
doctrine days. Well, people weren't really forced to listen. They just
tuned out.



Satellite radio is subscription, so listeners have already made their
choices in the
most concrete mannaer possible...with their wallets. There is no
practical limit to
the number of internet radio stations, and likewise satellite and cable TV
doesn't
use spectrum, and so has no practical limit on how many service can be
delivered.
Thus, in the absence of those limits, there is no need to promote
diversity of voice
and opinion. It's inherent in the service.

Just as a nit-pick, and I don't think it changes the thrust of your point,
but there is also alot of free audio on the non XM and Sirius sattelites.


The Fairness Doctrine is needed only for the medium where a diversity of
voices is
reduced when a service limits, by its existence, the ability for others to
be heard.


People who want to be informed are informed. They can read newspapers,
listen to news stations, surf the net, etc. I don't think people who don't
much care to be informed have ever appreciated the accidental information
from their favorite radio station. They just tuned out.


And how do we keep any sort of fairness doctrine from being used as a tool
of political harassment?

Frank Dresser

On 24 Oct 2004 02:18:10 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:

It discouraged political programming in the sense that it forced opposing
viewpoints. No political programming is easier than trying to strike a
subjective balance.

Proof by blatant assertion, I heard plenty of political
programming.

There was alot of bad radio forced on the public during the fairness
doctrine days. Well, people weren't really forced to listen. They just
tuned out.

It still happens and has nothing to do with the fairness
doctrine.