RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 10:42:57 AM)

It wasn't "Talk Radio" that doomed the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill", it was the fact that 90% of the American People are against it.
And it was Trent Lott who brought that up.
Probably trying to cover his own ass to his large big business "contributers" for not being able to shove that piece of garbage "legislation" down the throats of the American People.
This just goes to show how out of touch some members of the Senate are with "The People."
We need to get a bunch of Senators out of office in the next few elections.
They're there to listen to us, not for us to listen to them!
One of the greatest freedoms we enjoy in this country is; "Freedom of the Press."
Anyone who tries to mess with that should be slapped down!



mnottertail -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 10:44:06 AM)

nice try, but the Ham and CB networks are not regulated in the same manner as Broadcasting for profit, (even non-profits are trying to be profitable to someone).

Um, the fairness doctrine is being used right now in political speeches, the prez heps us to his wisdom and equal time is given the other side.  Don't matter if they wanna refute the discussion or talk about growing pansies.

The legal system is fucked up and plugged up anyway, nothing new there, but insofar as I am aware of, the common use of that idea in paragraph two above has not sent the world into some cataclysmic abyss.

Gloom and doom, gloom and doom.

If the ideas presented are so right and strong, they will survive the obvious WMDs that are being conceived by the intelligencia of the right.

 




RacerJim -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 10:47:03 AM)

What this all boils down to is an attempt by Democrats to abridge conservative talk-radio's Constitutional right to "Freedom of Speech" -- just like the DNC and Kerry campaign attempted to, and to some degree did, abridge the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Constitutional right to "Freedom of Speech" by filing complaints with the FCC and threatening broadcast media with civil law suits if they ran the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

Liberal talk-radio, aka Air America, had the same opportunity to garner market-share as conservative talk-radio but quickly went bankrupt, despite George Soros' money, due to the lack of enough listeners. Too bad.  Betamax lost out to VHS, Macintosh lost out to WinTelPC, etc. etc. 

As for bias in print media, anyone who doubts the liberal bias of the three preeminent daily newspapers in the USA (The L.A. Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post) need only research which political party's candidates their endorsements have favored.   



mnottertail -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 10:53:05 AM)

this aint got nothing to do with the freedom of the press. 
why is it that so many are couching it that way?

Insofar as conservative, I belive you will find more 'liberals' are conservative, talking about right, upholding the constitution, rather come to diplomatic solutions than make war on anyone who will not bow to our viewpoint, decrying the torture and imprisonment.

Um, protesters were arrested and barred from dubyas campaign stops--there was a lot of squashing going on when people started pointing out that he was a deserter and a coward. 

I don't know, it all looks like it is gonna wash.   



Sinergy -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 12:03:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

Is Rubert Murdoc a republican or a Democrate? Is Rush Limbaugh a republican or a democrate?



Rupert Murdoch is an Australian citizen, so he is neither Republican or Democrat.  He is, however, a multi-billionaire who has publicly stated he is arch-conservative, virulently hostile to communism, and only decided to stop plotting the downfall of China when China agreed to allow him to bring his communications networks into the country.

In other words, his stated ideals crumbled in the face of potential profit.

I dont know what party Limbaugh is a member of.  I never found him that interesting when my ex-wife would listen to him, although he did spend quite some time inarticulately trashing Clinton and the Democrats.

Sinergy




domiguy -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 12:04:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611


Since the beginning of civilization, governments have always strived to control and constrict the flow of information. It seems our government today is no different. The greatest danger to a corrupt government is an informed public that constantly watches over the shoulders of their elected officials. And this is why many career politicians in Washington today do not want you to read their bills and watch what they are doing.


I am all for an informed "public."  It is obvious that this will never take place....Even if the Fairness Doctrine were to be put in place it would have little effect.  Why did Air America fail?  Obviously there must be something entirely different in the way that people on the "left" want their news spoon fed to them in comparison to those on the "right."  I know this is a bit condescending but there has to be some validity to this argument for instance....Report after report disavows the  fact that Saddam played any role that led to the events of 9/11...And yet here are the numbers.
 
[A] new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them. The same poll in June showed that 56% of all
 
Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%

October 6th 2004
 

When one chooses for instance to get their news from Fox they are never going to be informed to what is actually taking place....These are the same folks who will never watch the BBC or question what is barfed up to them.

All too often I have found that there is an inherent acceptance on the part of Republicans to simply accept what has been offered up by the party....How else can one account for the success of Fox but the failure of Air America?

this is from another thread regarding torture at Abu Ghraib prison.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1106974/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

quote:

uwinceismile
being a conservative republican doesnt exactly win me invites to high end get togethers round these parts ;) ......

but i do have faith in the powers at be who have been trained in such matters.


Now I know that uwinceismile does not speak for every Republican...But there does seem to be a common philosophy of "blind" trust and obedience without question when it comes to many people whom align themselves with the GOP.

One of the greatest attributes given to the people of our nation is the ability to question our government....But how many even view this "right" as being a virtue let alone actually contend to do so is being unpatriotic? 

The Fairness Doctrine will do little to change people's minds.....People who have spoke their minds like, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon or even the Dixie Chicks are not viewed as being heroes or strong Americans for speaking their minds and questioning their government, and correctly  I might add, but are viewed by many as being unpatriotic or malcontents.

Cyberdude... I recall a post you once made, this is not an attempt to pick on you, after George Bush stated that he never said that there was a connection between Saddam and al qaeda.  You read what he said and simply posted it as fact....I might have done the same thing a few years back....It was not true...He lied.  Yet, how many folks are going to take the time to see if their President is telling the truth? How many will accept his statements blindly?

The fairness Doctrine does not take into account that people will only hear what they want and love to have their own beliefs constantly reaffirmed..and really don't want to be bogged down by the facts....We live in a NASCAR nation...I accept this now (This argument I believe portrays the right more than the left...but both sides are guilty of these types of actions)....And all of the Fairness Doctrines or propositions for equal air time given to opposing views will have little effect in negating these facts.



popeye1250 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 12:47:07 PM)

On one side you have Fox and on the other The N.Y. Times.
They're both tabloid news.
They're both in the same vein as "The Tattler", or "The National Enquirer" as far as I'm concerned.
Being an Independant I like more moderate sources of News that give me both sides of an issue so that I can make my own decisions.
The only show on Fox that fulfills that is probably "Hannity & Combs", but Hannity is a big Bush fan and can be obnoxious.
O'Reilly used to be pretty good but he totally missed the boat with the American People on that "Scamnesty" Bill.
It's a real shame about the N.Y. Times, 20 years ago they were a top rate newspaper. They'd report the news, not try to shape the news and they kept their editorials in the Op/Ed section and not on the front page.
Now they've been plagued by one scandal after another as well as plagerism.
How the mighty fall.

P.S. News services should take a lesson from that old Teacher's saying; "Teach, don't Preach."



philosophy -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 1:22:55 PM)

...again, i broadly agree with Caitlyn here. However i do believe it is possible to create a news policy that may be generally balanced, if biased in specifics. One of the things i have admired about the BBC over the years is the fact that every UK government of the day has bleated about it being biased against them.........that seems to me to be about the right balance.



farglebargle -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 1:25:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

Well who decides what is an opposing viewpoint on talk radio?


The person with it.

So how exactly do you apply the law?


If you do FIVE MINUTES of COMMENTARY AND OPINION, you need to provide 5 minutes access to anyone who disagrees with the LICENSEES COMMENTARY AND OPINION.

*NEWS* is neither COMMENTARY nor OPINION.

quote:


Does it apply to all radio communication? If you are a HAM or a CB radio user, do you have to have someone sitting next to you to offer an opposing viewpoint when you articulate an opinion over the airwaves?


Go read the FCC Regulations to learn the answer to your questions.




NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 1:45:29 PM)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger?

What freedom of the press? What the fuck do you know about the US government's fingers in the pie of foreign nations?



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 1:48:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

Is Rubert Murdoc a republican or a Democrate? Is Rush Limbaugh a republican or a democrate?



Rupert Murdoch is an Australian citizen, so he is neither Republican or Democrat.  He is, however, a multi-billionaire who has publicly stated he is arch-conservative, virulently hostile to communism, and only decided to stop plotting the downfall of China when China agreed to allow him to bring his communications networks into the country.

In other words, his stated ideals crumbled in the face of potential profit.

I dont know what party Limbaugh is a member of.  I never found him that interesting when my ex-wife would listen to him, although he did spend quite some time inarticulately trashing Clinton and the Democrats.

Sinergy



In the defence of conservatives, Murdoch is nowhere near a conservative in the Adam Smith mould, he's far more in tune with Thatcher and Reagan.



domiguy -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 2:40:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

On one side you have Fox and on the other The N.Y. Times.
They're both tabloid news.
They're both in the same vein as "The Tattler", or "The National Enquirer" as far as I'm concerned.
Being an Independant I like more moderate sources of News that give me both sides of an issue so that I can make my own decisions.
The only show on Fox that fulfills that is probably "Hannity & Combs", but Hannity is a big Bush fan and can be obnoxious.
O'Reilly used to be pretty good but he totally missed the boat with the American People on that "Scamnesty" Bill.
It's a real shame about the N.Y. Times, 20 years ago they were a top rate newspaper. They'd report the news, not try to shape the news and they kept their editorials in the Op/Ed section and not on the front page.
Now they've been plagued by one scandal after another as well as plagerism.
How the mighty fall.

P.S. News services should take a lesson from that old Teacher's saying; "Teach, don't Preach."


Even though there are papers that definitely have their slant....I'm not nearly as opposed to this type of journalism...First off it requires someone to read and then hopefully be able to process what they have read into thought....tv is truly mindless...Most of the times when you tune into "Hannity and combs" you know exactly what you are going to get...Hannity says over two words for every one of combs.  There is little "open" dialogue in that Hannity will simply over talk someone who has an opinion that is contary to his.

I watch Fox to see how they are portraying the events of the world....There was a study (depends entirely on what validity you place on such things) that showed viewers who soley received there news from Fox were the most uniformed group....In contrast to those who received their news from other source(s).

This has nothing to do with popeye.

Those that are truly curious will question what they hear and read....The majority of Americans have not the desire to put out such an effort into the way they choose to receive their news.



popeye1250 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 2:57:39 PM)

Domiguy, that's true, most people work for a living and don't have the time.
I'm retired so I have plenty of time to inform myself and I even watch Fox once in a while.
No Rush though.
Years ago I used to read 5-7 newspapers a day.
I like the old saying, "Reading between the lines."



uwinceismile -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 2:57:54 PM)

just for the sake of being clear..... when i typed  quote:

uwinceismile
being a conservative republican doesnt exactly win me invites to high end get togethers round these parts ;) ......

but i do have faith in the powers at be who have been trained in such matters.

which was c&p'ed here ....it was in respect to a very specific area.
not a blind allegience to a party or canidate. i have not lasted 22 yrs in business, running around with my eyes wide shut ;)



domiguy -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 3:12:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uwinceismile

just for the sake of being clear..... when i typed  quote:

uwinceismile
being a conservative republican doesnt exactly win me invites to high end get togethers round these parts ;) ......

but i do have faith in the powers at be who have been trained in such matters.

which was c&p'ed here ....it was in respect to a very specific area.
not a blind allegience to a party or canidate. i have not lasted 22 yrs in business, running around with my eyes wide shut ;)



Sorry if you feel I took liberties with your post....It was in regards to a specific subject which was the torture at Abu Ghraib prison...Which I made clear and even provided the link.

I put little or no faith in the powers that be....They just simply fuck up on to much of a regular basis to be trusted.



Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 3:29:31 PM)

I’m having a feeling of de-Ja-vu (I am clueless on how to spell that word) here.

farglebargle said:
quote:

And regulating the broadcast to ensure profit is the worst kind of WELFARE imaginable.

It their BUSINESS MODEL is profitable, REGULATION BY THE GOVERNMENT WON'T CHANGE IT.

And if it does tank because of regulation, THEIR MODEL WAS A FAILURE.

Oh bullshit! The regulations (in almost any field of business) are constantly changing. Bureaucracies have to justify their continued existence, after all. That’s the real "worst kind of welfare imaginable." Welfare recipients who control the welfare check. While a businesses plan may fail due to it’s own weaknesses, more often than not the blame can be laid directly at the government’s doorstep. A business plan may be working fine and suddenly the government changes the rules making what was once profitable, unprofitable.  I've seen it happen.

slaveboyforyou said:
quote:

The Fairness Doctrine is a stupid regulation that is unenforceable. There are too many variants, and all it will do is cost money and clog the legal system with endless lawsuits.

BINGO! Yes! Somebody who gets it! And I would like to add that broadcasters, not wanting the (unprofitable) legal hassle will shy away from anything remotely resembling controversy. The end result will be less, not more, political speech. 
People who support the so called Fairness Doctrine, fail to grasp that there is a difference between intentions and results (actually, that happens a lot in politics).

What this all boils down to folks is this: in the talk radio market, the liberals are losing out to the conservatives big time. That pisses them off so now they want to rig the outcome. I wonder if someone did propose a "fairness doctrine," for the print media, if the left would be for it (or the right against it) then?



mnottertail -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 3:51:30 PM)

I would be dead set against it.  It is a single mans or corporations enterprise.  This abridges freedom of speech, next time you decide you want to defend that right in a area of licensing for your brethren, I offer you a simple remedy.  Get all drunk up--drive into a cop car, even less.  Park out in the public highway, start daring the licensing authority to abridge your freedom of speech--when you get hauled before the courts you just say, looky here you little jack-booted motherfucker, tell you what, I am the will of the people...........you goddamn sure will do us all a favor in our defense, while you are at it, see that you are as even handed with the freedom of our justice system to them in Abu Grahib and Guantanemo and their right to be heard.

Cake gets cut both ways.  Indeed the conservatives should coordinate policy whether or not everybody should shut the fuck up or everybody be given free rein in their utterance, or it might appear as though the Grand Old Party is floundering.




farglebargle -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/29/2007 3:58:09 PM)

quote:


Oh bullshit! The regulations (in almost any field of business) are constantly changing. Bureaucracies have to justify their continued existence, after all. That’s the real "worst kind of welfare imaginable." Welfare recipients who control the welfare check. While a businesses plan may fail due to it’s own weaknesses, more often than not the blame can be laid directly at the government’s doorstep. A business plan may be working fine and suddenly the government changes the rules making what was once profitable, unprofitable. I've seen it happen.


Without the FCC Regulation THERE IS NO BROADCAST INDUSTRY.

Look at the Internet? The essentially egalitarian nature of it is responsible for it's vigorous growth. If ANYONE could set up a transmitter, the GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MONOPOLY would evaporate.

What else is a Government Created and Enforced Monopoly on an Industry, but Welfare ( OR Socialism... )?



Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/30/2007 10:45:42 PM)

quote:

I would be dead set against it.

Dead set against what?

quote:

It is a single mans or corporations enterprise. This abridges freedom of speech...

What abridges freedom of speech? Letting the people decided what they do and do not want to listen to?

quote:

next time you decide you want to defend that right in a area of licensing for your brethren...

And exactly who would "my brethren" be?

quote:

I offer you a simple remedy. Get all drunk up--drive into a cop car, even less. Park out in the public highway, start daring the licensing authority to abridge your freedom of speech--when you get hauled before the courts you just say, looky here you little jack-booted motherfucker, tell you what, I am the will of the people...

I Thought I made this clear (but apparently I didn’t), I am not disputing the government’s right to regulate the airwaves. I am questioning to what extent, and toward what purpose, the government should regulate the airwaves.  I believe the goal should be to let the people listen to what they want to listen to and for the government to make some money off of it. Letting the people listen to what they want to listen to is freedom. Telling them that they can only listen to what the government says they can listen to (which they won’t do anyway, they’ll just turn the knob to off) is tyranny. As for the government making money off the airwaves, the only way they will do that is if the people using the airwaves make money of off it. You can’t collect revenue from people who are not making a profit.

quote:

...you goddamn sure will do us all a favor in our defense, while you are at it, see that you are as even handed with the freedom of our justice system to them in Abu Grahib and Guantanemo and their right to be heard.

Careful, you’re drifting into thompsonx territory. You are falling into the "yeah but... yeah but..." trap based upon the assumption that if I believe "A" then I must also believe "B."  Besides, these are two completely separate subjects.  We are talking about the Fairness Doctrine, not about the war on terrorism. 

quote:

Cake gets cut both ways. Indeed the conservatives should coordinate policy whether or not everybody should shut the fuck up or everybody be given free rein in their utterance, or it might appear as though the Grand Old Party is floundering.

I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. You should calm down a little before you start typing.

(Since the Ann Coulter thread has drifted over to this topic, I thought I’d bring this over here)

quote:

well, all well and fine, then let the people decide all of it, get out of Iraq, impeach bush, get the government out of the business of legislating morality and spying, and dump the religious bullshit.

I would be fine with a comprehensive package, but to listen to some asswipe ruminant who has a good lead in beat and then wanes immediately to offal and ignorance is not something that I strongly support, no more than I support the government.

First let me say, beware of the idea of the comprehensive package. One size really does not fit all.

As for the rest... yes! Let the people decide. Apparently you want to in some areas but not in other’s. The difference seems to be whether or not you agree with what the people are deciding. This is what you can’t have both ways (although politics is exactly that, people trying to have it both ways). Either you are for freedom or you are against it. You don’t have to listen to the asswipe ruminant if you don’t want to but other’s do want to. Who the hell are you to tell them they can’t? If you don’t like what they are listening too then use your freedom of speech to try and persuade then that they shouldn’t listen to the asswipe ruminant. If you can, good for you. If you can’t, well... tough shit! Freedom means you have the opportunity to try, it does not guarantee an outcome to your liking - and trying to rig it to your liking deprives others of their freedom. That’s a dangerous precedent to set because if the other’s freedom can be denied, then what right do you have to assert yours?

"If we deny the other, we deny ourselves."
– J. Michael Straczynski
 
To put it another way – you have the right to pursue happiness. You do not have the right to be happy.


THIS REALLY ISN’T THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT PEOPLE!



Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (6/30/2007 11:27:46 PM)

quote:

Without the FCC Regulation THERE IS NO BROADCAST INDUSTRY.

Without regulations (and laws) there wouldn’t be a lot (if any) industry of any kind. That is not the question. The question is how much regulation. The question is (again), where do we draw the line? I prefer to draw it in a place that allows the maximum amount of freedom with out tipping over into anarchy.

quote:

Look at the Internet? The essentially egalitarian nature of it is responsible for it's vigorous growth.

No, it's essentially unregulated nature is responsible for it's vigorous growth. People know that they can say what they want without some bureaucrat deciding whether or not that they can say it (not that the bureaucrats aren’t trying).

However, much of the internet is over the airwaves today. If we agree that the government has the right to regulate the airwaves, does that not give the government the authority to regulate the internet (or at least portions of it)? Should Collarme have to provide space for the Moral Majority to post it’s views on BDSM?

"Oh no Moderators, you can’t remove that post calling all BDSMers sick perverts who should be locked into a cell and given only a Bible to read. Equal time, after all!"

quote:

What else is a Government Created and Enforced Monopoly on an Industry, but Welfare ( OR Socialism... )?

I agree. If you agree, then why do you want to government to enforce what can and can’t be said on the airwaves? Why not let the free market decide. Oh... that’s right... people are deciding in ways you don’t approve of.

A thought has occurred to me. If the government has the right to regulate to content of what’s going over the airwaves, would that not also give the government the right to regulate the content of cell phone conversations? Or the right to listen in whenever it pleases (they are THE PEOPLE’S airwaves after all)? Just one more reason why we might want to think carefully about how much power we want the government to have in regulating the airwaves.

Another thought has occurred. If, as you say, the airwaves belong to THE PEOPLE, then should not the people directly benefit from the licensing fees? Should not the money from the licensing fees be tallied up and then divided amongst the people. Divided up amongst millions of people, it probably wouldn’t amount to much but still, I would mind getting a check in the mail every so often.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875