+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Return of the Fairness Doctrine?

  1. #21
    Terrible. Wilfredo Ledezma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hundred Acre Woods
    Posts
    7,209
    Blog Entries
    1
    What I don't get is that it seems unncessary for congress Democrats to try and take measures to stop conservative radio, because they're acting almost as if it was a threat to them.

    Well, didn't this past election prove that conservative talk radio has no bearing on the outcome of elections?? The only people who listen are the ones who want too. Kind of like "preaching to the choir", more or less.

    IDK, seems to me there are bigger issues in the country that could use the Congress spotlight...

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfredo Ledezma
    IDK, seems to me there are bigger issues in the country that could use the Congress spotlight...
    The key point here is that the issue hasn't actually reached the spotlight in congress... and it probably won't. It just seems like it's in a spotlight because the right is in a tizzy over it.

  3. #23
    NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH Uncle Mxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Zrfff
    Posts
    14,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahoe
    Its such horseshit. Libs don't listen to the radio, so they try to legislate conservatives from doing it.
    That's not what would really happen. Conservatives would just move over to satellite radio. People will pay for unfair and unbalanced.

    PBS and Moyer get tons of our taxpayer dollars.
    Who'd be the moral equivalent of Moyers on the right these days? I never minded seeing taxpayer dollars go to Buckley for Firing Line.

  4. #24
    A person who tells lies. Tahoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Just fibbing, you guys!
    Posts
    38,773
    Quit picking a fight with me. How's your transmission doing?
    Players meeting my ASS!

  5. #25
    NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH Uncle Mxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Zrfff
    Posts
    14,933
    It's not my intent to pick a fight.

    I just don't see it going the way many Fairness Doctrine advocates think it would go. It'd just be more push to get "personalities" onto satellite and cable, away from the pussified broadcast shit.

    As it turns out, I live in an absolutely horrible area for satellite.

  6. #26
    A person who tells lies. Tahoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Just fibbing, you guys!
    Posts
    38,773
    Just let the market dictate what it wants, is my position. Keep the gov't out of it.
    Players meeting my ASS!

  7. #27
    NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH Uncle Mxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Zrfff
    Posts
    14,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahoe
    Just let the market dictate what it wants, is my position. Keep the gov't out of it.
    The thing is that the commercial market for broadcast spectrum has to be defined and regulated by the government. Otherwise, there'd be jamming, overlap, etc. and the broadcast market would be dead.

    Unfortunately, governments aren't simply standards and law enforcement bodies. There's inevitable politicization. What's appropriate? Today, it's the left and a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Yesterday, it was Janet Jackson's nipple at the Super Bowl. Tomorrow, I'm sure it'll be some dumbass shit that touches on the Internet in some way -- should guv'mint-subsidized wireless hotspots filter porn and|or political speech (helll, should they exist at all?).

    Of course, the technologies will consistently eclipse the government so folks in the know will be muttering "What's the fucking point?".

  8. #28

  9. #29
    A person who tells lies. Tahoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Just fibbing, you guys!
    Posts
    38,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
    The thing is that the commercial market for broadcast spectrum has to be defined and regulated by the government. Otherwise, there'd be jamming, overlap, etc. and the broadcast market would be dead.

    Unfortunately, governments aren't simply standards and law enforcement bodies. There's inevitable politicization. What's appropriate? Today, it's the left and a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Yesterday, it was Janet Jackson's nipple at the Super Bowl. Tomorrow, I'm sure it'll be some dumbass shit that touches on the Internet in some way -- should guv'mint-subsidized wireless hotspots filter porn and|or political speech (helll, should they exist at all?).

    Of course, the technologies will consistently eclipse the government so folks in the know will be muttering "What's the fucking point?".
    I read this long, reall long article about Bush and Ashcroft (?) were getting ready to hit porn hard right after Bush was elected. They were getting ready to really go after the entire industry hard. They were going to start the fall of 01. They were interrupted.
    Players meeting my ASS!

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahoe
    I read this long, reall long article about Bush and Ashcroft (?) were getting ready to hit porn hard right after Bush was elected. They were getting ready to really go after the entire industry hard. They were going to start the fall of 01. They were interrupted.
    Phew.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts