Originally Posted by Botnst
So let's censor newspapers and magazines, too. They are media and they are paid for by advertising. Let's open-up the Op-Ed page of the NY Times to some equal time by somebody not selected by the NY Times editorial board.
I am surprised you don't see censorship of political speech as a threat to democracy. Who is the arbiter of fairness, the majority? Jayhawk? Me? You?
If you don't like some particular radio show's message, get off your tired-ass and produce a show that people want to listen to that offers a different perspective. You do not "deserve" a voice, you earn it like every other commercial enterprise. Except NPR, publicly own and which is, unsurprisingly, biased the other way -- but that's okay, right? If you hear a message that you find offensive do the right things: DON'T LISTEN. Tell other people not to listen. But don't censor political speech.
Just keep the gov the fuck out of the way and let the freedom ring. If you have a message people want to hear, they'll listen.
You need to re-read what I have written about the subject of the Fairness Doctrine on this and the other thread on the subject. The closest that I have come to an opinion is on the other thread where I stated:
Originally Posted by McBear
When some talk shows decided to become political tools in the 80s, they crossed into a really big gray area that has not been addressed, much like churches as PACs.
I personally do see censorship of political speech as a threat to democracy. I always have. The rest of what I have posted is based of my understanding of both the history and use of the Fairness Doctrine, how the current folks have intended to resurrect it and how the broadcasting world has to deal with both its implications and how, after deregulation it avoided its implications and has suffered, in some respects Unintended Consequences.
I also know that once the airwaves were deregulated in the 1980s and corporate entities were allowed to build unlimited numbers of stations that there has been a threat that a VERY small number of people [such as Viacom, Clearchannel and Cumulus Media] would be able to direct what went on the air without regard to public needs or “fairness”. This has been played out by network booking of shows such as Rush, O’Really and others. They are popular to a market that listens to talk radio and talk radio is the cheapest product to produce and market in the radio business. It has resulted in a blanket saturation of the “Talk” Market only having one set of shows, and no matter whether you want one or not, there are minimum slots on a National Market to open. And contracts with existing talent restrict who can follow or precede them.
My point is the Fairness Doctrine folks look like they are going to try and reset the balance to where stations are expected to broadcast all sides, not censor any, either by removing them or excluding them by contract.
Regarding the New York Times, you need to read it more often. The Op-Ed section has opposing views by world class writers, politicians, economists and others every week.
EDIT: From other thread I posted this:
Right now 8 guys [ok, seven men and one lady] control decisions for 92% of the radio stations and of what is broadcast on talk radio in the US. These are the Program Directors for Clearchannel , Cumulus, Tribune, Westinghouse, Viacom/CBS, Citadel, Disney, Cox.
They decide based purely on ROI.
Reference is Fall 2006 Arbitron Red Book