I thought Conservatives just LOVED the Constitution?

[WinterBorn]

You're right. But let me ask you this, wouldn't hearing 'all' sides give citizens the best knowledge base to make more informed decisions? I suspect what the 'libertarians' are not revealing is their desire to limit or silence views that they disagree with, and their fear of the truth.

Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.
Leo Tolstoy

No one is making any effort to limit anyone's ability to get information.

They are selling a product. They sell what makes them money.



You never answered my question:

Is it the gov't's duty to make sure I know all sides?
Or is it my duty to educate myself concerning all sides of an issue?

 

[cawacko]

You're right. But let me ask you this, wouldn't hearing 'all' sides give citizens the best knowledge base to make more informed decisions? I suspect what the 'libertarians' are not revealing is their desire to limit or silence views that they disagree with, and their fear of the truth.

Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.
Leo Tolstoy

I live in San Francisco. To many people here the Democratic side is the Republican side and the Republican side is off the charts. Who gets to represent these people's points of view?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

btw...Howard Stern is mentioned because he's spent a lifetime in broadcasting and therefore much more qualified than some message board simpleton who thinks a couple semesters of college radio make him knowledgeable on the subject, to comment on the inner workings at some radio station.

If I want info on broadcasting...I talk to a DJ.

If I ever need help getting the Boot off my car, I'll call a meter maid.

and what does howard stern have to say about this? do you have some link where he says no one will listen to whats being played at the studio?

if not, then you just spread some false bs by falsely appealing to authority when no such authority exists....

link up basement boy

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Let's review all the ways the Yurturd is wrong...

Stations REGULARLY run programming that isn't listened to by anyone at the station. They can do this thanks to our friend the computer and before it, Automation equipment that listened only for a sub-sonic Auxilliary tone to switch from one source to another.

IF...and that's a big IF...If the station can afford to pay someone to sit and do nothing while monitoring what gets broadcast, that person listens ONLY for SILENCE. He/she doesn't monitor every single word of every program they broadcast, only for silence, which indicates something is wrong.

PRE-Recorded audio recorded somewhere other than the station itself is checked BEFOREHAND so the station knows for sure BEFORE IT IS BROADCAST that there is nothing wrong with the audio.

The bottom line is station employees are far too busy doing their jobs to stand around listening to every word of every program...despite what Yurt and his EXTENSIVE background in broadcasting will tell you.

yeah....clear channel media is just going to allow someone to make a pre recorded statement or a live statement without KNOWING whats being said....additionally, this is more than likely about talk radio, in fact, it is about talk radio...if you knew anything, you would know that when you call into talk radio, you are instructed to turn your radio OFF because it interferes with their broadcast IN THE STUDIO.

you're a fool and obviously have no clue how radio stations are run, they aren't run like your basement station. no huge channel is just going to blindly let someone say something without knowing whats being said. pure bullshit, much like your claim rightwing rhetoric caused an armed robbery that resulted in death.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I call it the 4th estate because that is how important a free press is to a democratic society. Especially when the question is war and peace.

HOW do the lies the Bush administration fabricated to launch a war have anything to do with truth? The truth was never told. And HOW does only 5 multinational corporations owning all of the media NOT resemble the Nazi propaganda machine or Pravda?

As for the Fairness Doctrine, news is NOT big business. The Fairness Doctrine required licensees to set aside air time FOR news. It set guidelines for minimum amounts of news, public affairs, and other non-entertainment programming.

You are making the false assumption that the airwaves are private property, they're NOT. They belong to all of us.

The Fairness Doctrine is based on James Madison's views of the first amendment.

James Madison (was) the great champion of free speech during the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For Madison, the First Amendment was important as a way to ensure political equality, especially in the face of economic inequalities, and to foster free and open political deliberation. This conception of the First Amendment sees free speech as servicing the civic needs of a democracy. Free speech, in Madison's view, expresses the sovereignty of the people. Justice Louis Brandeis, also associated with this vision of the First Amendment, emphasized the vital role of citizens in coming together as political equals to engage in rational political discussion. In Brandeis's view, free speech is not just an end unto itself, or simply a freedom from Govern- ment meddling; it is also a necessary means for democratic self-governance.

The philosophical distinction between the free marketplace of ideas metaphor and the Madisonian notion of a deliberative democracy is not academic. It lies at the heart of the public interest standard in broadcasting. From the beginning, broadcast regulation in the public interest has sought to meet certain basic needs of American politics and culture, over and above what the marketplace may or may not provide. It has sought to cultivate a more informed citizenry, greater democratic dialogue, diversity of expression, a more educated population, and more robust, culturally inclusive communities.

The Madisonian concept of free speech helps clarify, then, why public interest obligations have been seen as vital to broadcast television—and why a marketplace conception of free speech may meet many, but not all, needs of American democracy. As constitutional scholars have noted, the famous "marketplace of ideas" metaphor associated with Justice Holmes presumes that diverse ideas have the ability to compete for public acceptance.

http://benton.org/initiatives/obligations/charting_the_digital_broadcasting_future/sec2

why are you ignoring post 93? because it doesn't comport with your world view?

 

[zappasguitar]

yeah....clear channel media is just going to allow someone to make a pre recorded statement or a live statement without KNOWING whats being said....additionally, this is more than likely about talk radio, in fact, it is about talk radio...if you knew anything, you would know that when you call into talk radio, you are instructed to turn your radio OFF because it interferes with their broadcast IN THE STUDIO.

you're a fool and obviously have no clue how radio stations are run, they aren't run like your basement station. no huge channel is just going to blindly let someone say something without knowing whats being said. pure bullshit, much like your claim rightwing rhetoric caused an armed robbery that resulted in death.

Show me where I claimed radio stations allow pre-recorded or live statements on the air without knowing what's been said.

I CLEARLY stated in my prior post: "PRE-Recorded audio recorded somewhere other than the station itself is checked BEFOREHAND so the station knows for sure BEFORE IT IS BROADCAST that there is nothing wrong with the audio."

Keep pitching that tantrum and showing everyone just how stupid you truly are...this is fun!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Show me where I claimed radio stations allow pre-recorded or live statements on the air without knowing what's been said.

I CLEARLY stated in my prior post: "PRE-Recorded audio recorded somewhere other than the station itself is checked BEFOREHAND so the station knows for sure BEFORE IT IS BROADCAST that there is nothing wrong with the audio."

Keep pitching that tantrum and showing everyone just how stupid you truly are...this is fun!

have you ever called into talk radio? live? yes or no.

and someone from THEIR station would in fact check it out, to claim they would not is utter rubbish. they could be sued if they just let anything go on the air. to claim a station just lets any content on without checking the content is so ludicrous i'm just laughing at you. you claimed someone from the station doesn't listen to it. now you're changing your stance, slightly, but ever so moving the goal posts because you know you're wrong.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Show me where I claimed radio stations allow pre-recorded or live statements on the air without knowing what's been said.

right here

Stations REGULARLY run programming that isn't listened to by anyone at the station.

 

[Bfgrn]

No one is making any effort to limit anyone's ability to get information.

They are selling a product. They sell what makes them money.



You never answered my question:

Is it the gov't's duty to make sure I know all sides?
Or is it my duty to educate myself concerning all sides of an issue?

'Selling' is not what makes informed decisions by citizens.

Your question: It is a combination of the two.

In Germany, was it the government's propaganda or the citizens lack of duty to educate themselves that led to the Third Reich?

 

[WinterBorn]

'Selling' is not what makes informed decisions by citizens.

Your question: It is a combination of the two.

In Germany, was it the government's propaganda or the citizens lack of duty to educate themselves that led to the Third Reich?

And I would say you are absolutely wrong.

The example you use has no real bearing, since the situations are radically different.

It is each individual's duty to make informed choices. Having one more voice forced by the gov't isn't going to really change anything. If things are as you claim, then the rich would simply buy the other voice too.



But lets look at it as if it would make a difference.

Lets say one corporation owned more stations than any other. We'll call them Limbaugh Ltd. If they make $100,000 an hour doing conservative talk radio, who pays them the $100k?

Who pays for the equipment used in the broadcast? Who pays the army of people involved in sending the broadcast out?

You want to use the force of the gov't to take over a privately owned radio station so you can have your message sent out for free? How can you justify that? And do all that just because so many are too lazy to seek info for themselves? And you call that a good use of gov't force?

 

[Bfgrn]

And I would say you are absolutely wrong.

The example you use has no real bearing, since the situations are radically different.

It is each individual's duty to make informed choices. Having one more voice forced by the gov't isn't going to really change anything. If things are as you claim, then the rich would simply buy the other voice too.



But lets look at it as if it would make a difference.

Lets say one corporation owned more stations than any other. We'll call them Limbaugh Ltd. If they make $100,000 an hour doing conservative talk radio, who pays them the $100k?

Who pays for the equipment used in the broadcast? Who pays the army of people involved in sending the broadcast out?

You want to use the force of the gov't to take over a privately owned radio station so you can have your message sent out for free? How can you justify that? And do all that just because so many are too lazy to seek info for themselves? And you call that a good use of gov't force?

Are you really THAT blockheaded? The airwaves are not private property!

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you really THAT blockheaded? The airwaves are not private property!

I never once mentioned the actual airwaves.

So I take it that you are not going to answer the questions I posed?

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you really THAT blockheaded? The airwaves are not private property!

You are aware that broadcasting to a national audience requires more than airwaves? You need major equipment, licences, skilled personnel, and even electricity.

 

[Bfgrn]

I never once mentioned the actual airwaves.

So I take it that you are not going to answer the questions I posed?

It is a false argument. The airwaves are not private property. They are part of the public trust. Radio stations have been granted the privilege to use the airwaves. You want to just move past that...you can't...

 

[WinterBorn]

It is a false argument. The airwaves are not private property. They are part of the public trust. Radio stations have been granted the privilege to use the airwaves. You want to just move past that...you can't...

Ok, so HOW do these programs go out on the airwaves? No equipment, no skilled personnel, no electricity, and no buildings involved?

It is absolutely NOT a false argument. Yes, the airwaves are publically owned. But in order to send out this "alternate side" of the story, people have to sacrifice their skilled time, expensive equipment must be used, and various bills would have to be paid.

You want those people to work for free, so that lazy people don't have to seek information on their own?

You want privately owned, and very expensive, equipment to be usurped so that lazy people don't have to seek their own information?

 

[Bfgrn]

Ok, so HOW do these programs go out on the airwaves? No equipment, no skilled personnel, no electricity, and no buildings involved?

It is absolutely NOT a false argument. Yes, the airwaves are publically owned. But in order to send out this "alternate side" of the story, people have to sacrifice their skilled time, expensive equipment must be used, and various bills would have to be paid.

You want those people to work for free, so that lazy people don't have to seek information on their own?

You want privately owned, and very expensive, equipment to be usurped so that lazy people don't have to seek their own information?

That's the way it goes. If they don't want to buy the equipment, get out of the way. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies.

BTW, your dogma is showing. You're making an ass out of yourself...

 

[WinterBorn]

That's the way it goes. If they don't want to buy the equipment, get out of the way. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies.

BTW, your dogma is showing. You're making an ass out of yourself...

No, you are adamantly refusing to address my questions.

I am asking who will pay for the myriad of expenses involved in broadcasting your alternative message?

Who will pay the salaries, for the equipment used, and the other bills to have the alternative message broadcast?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, you are adamantly refusing to address my questions.

I am asking who will pay for the myriad of expenses involved in broadcasting your alternative message?

Who will pay the salaries, for the equipment used, and the other bills to have the alternative message broadcast?

he refuses to address anything that doesn't comport to his world view....hence why he ignores post 93 and continues to act as if that knowledge doesn't exist

 

[WinterBorn]

Bfgrn, let me help you answer the questions more clearly...



Will the alternate message (or messages) be free to broadcast nationwide? Of course they will not.


So who will foot the bill?

 

[Damocles]

Damo...you are ass backwards. The fairness doctrine did not force anyone to 'listen', but it set as a provision of the privilege of the use of the public trust can and should 'provide' both sides of critical issues.

No, it simply gives those producing the shows any option in what to produce. You will cover "this" or else. That is government force misapplied to remove individual liberty to the detriment of all of us.

Radio and editorializing has been nothing but better since the ending of the "unfreedom doctrine". That you are upset that people aren't forced to listen to your government-approved "other side" makes me even more certain that it was the right decision. That people are free to produce shows that do not follow the proscribed government "approval" plan is a very good thing, and believe me every libertarian believes it is so.

At least you aren't trying to pursue the "libertarians should support this" angle, that one was just plain wrong.