Fairness doctrine, schmairness doctrine...

[Jackpine Radical]

What we need is a law that, first, limits the local market monopolization of any mass-media outlet company (you can only own one broadcast station--radio or TV--in any local market), and second, restricts ownership so that the communication enterprise must be the sole major business activity of the owning entity. Thus, if XYZ Company owns a TV station or a network, they are not allowed to also own, say, defense plant or a for-profit prison.

[midnight]

1. This sounds real good. I second it.

[Donnachaidh]

2. you mean like General Electric?

Just one that needs some MAJOR busting up.

[librechik]

3. Indeed--What liberal is FOR censorship, even of the lies the right tells?

Of course we are not. However, we do stand against market monopolies--a stance Republicans used to be in favor of, before they started owning so many, again.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. My goal is simply to eliminate the most obvious ulterior motives

for distorting reality, and to keep competing information channels open instead of allowing them all to fill up with the same message.

[Luminous Animal]

5. The Fairness Doctrine is not about censorship...

but about an opportunity of access to express counter opinions. That is, Limbaugh can still be a lying blowhard but the stations who carry him would be obliged to accept a petition to allow access to expose his lying blowhardness.

As for market monopolies, I am all for breaking them up. Even so, the media will be owned by rich people who tend to have similar self-interests that are at odds to the rest of us. The Fairness Doctrine would help give a platform to the rest of us.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Have to disagree

Free speech means the government won't take you away in the middle of the night for saying something they don't like.

It should never be a get-out-of-jail-free card for liars.

Repeating another of my posts:

Suppose you're on the phone reading instruction to someone who's dismantling a bomb

The instructions that you're reading say to cut the green wire first or the bomb explodes.

You'd like to see the guy at the other end of the line killed, so you tell him to cut the red wire first...and he's toast.

Not a problem, though. You've exercised your right to free speech.

-- OR --

Suppose you're the pResident and you lie to start a war.

You know you'll be killing a million innocent people. But not a problem ... you're just using your free speech.

For that matter, trying lying in court and then claiming it's just your right to free speech!


We're cutting our own throats and throwing America to the wolves if we call the demand for honesty "Censorship".

[librechik]

7. I know this is trivial--but being against Censorship does not mean

One is blindly and illogically for free speech in any circumstances. And of course the RW is twisting the arguments, so that we liberals can be "said" to be censoring RW talk radio by trying to reduce their market share. What else can you expect from the fattest WATBs of all time?

However, I think I can say that "no liberal is for censorship" and be correct.

Or am I being censored?

[FiveGoodMen]

8. What you said was: "What liberal is FOR censorship, even of the lies the right tells?"

"even of the lies" is the part I objected to.

[librechik]

10. confronting and exposing their lies is not censorship, and of course we should do so loudly

Going to the publisher and demanding the piece not be printed--and winning--through the use of superior social or political power is censorship.

No true liberal is in favor of that. Let them spew their lies. We can debunk them.

THEY are censoring us by not allowing us to share the airwaves with them in any sort of balanced number. They are limiting our free speech by exercising superior
So what is new? Their main (only?) debate tactic is to accuse us of crimes they are hideously guilty of.

[iamthebandfanman]

9. i dont wanna limit anybodys freedom of speech

but i do want to keep one corporation from owning all the media outlets in any region or area of the country.
you can not allow a monopoly in the media industry.
frankly, you can not allow a monopoly in ANY industry.
once dominance is in place, they can force any competition outa the market.
its not about the words being said, but the person who decides who gets to speak those words.


youd think what was going on now would be considered censorship... as its not the reporers and newscaster opinions, but the people behind the scenes that pays their bills.