Like an old record with a scratch on it.;-) On Dec 7, 8:31 am, "Keith In Tampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good article Navy.....Note that Chief Moonbat expresses no opinion with > regard to whether he agrees with the logic of George Will, or not. Moonbats > don't choose to address any rational logic, nor do they ever come up with > any original trains of thought. Its all about their rhetorical dogma..... > On Dec 7, 10:21 am, Liberal mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > still against free speech i see ! > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 9:53 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > the unfairness doctrine...the censorship doctrine..the protect the > > > liberal doctrine.. the shutup the opposition and damn the constitution > > > doctrine..but surely not the fairness doctrine. > > > > On Dec 7, 9:28 am, NavyBrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Ran in my local paper this morning...thought it was well written and > > > > informative. > > > > > WILL: Fairness Doctrine schizophrenia > > > > By George F. Will, The Washington Post > > > > Published December 7, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. > > > > Text size 0 Comments Email Print > > > > > George Will > > > > Reactionary liberalism, the ideology of many Democrats, holds that > > > > inconvenient rights, such as secret ballots in unionization elections, > > > > should be repealed; that existing failures, such as GM, should be > > > > preserved; and, with special perversity, that repealed mistakes, such > > > > as the "Fairness Doctrine," should be repeated. That Orwellian name > > > > was designed to disguise the doctrine's use as the government's > > > > instrument for preventing fair competition in the broadcasting of > > > > political commentary. > > > > > Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with > > > > conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with > > > > its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the > > > > form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals > > > > advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, the > > > > Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the Fairness Doctrine > > > > is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary > > > > liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has > > > > changed vastly, pertinently and for the better. > > > > > Until the Reagan administration extinguished it, the doctrine required > > > > broadcasters to devote reasonabletime to fairlypresenting allsides of > > > > any controversialissue discussed on the air. The government decided > > > > the meaning of the italicized words. > > > > > When government regulation of the content of broadcasts began in 1927, > > > > the supposed justification was the scarcity of radio spectrum. > > > > > In 1928 and 1929, when Republicans ran Washington, a New York station > > > > owned by the Socialist Party was warned to show "due regard" for > > > > others' opinions, and the government blocked the Chicago Federation of > > > > Labor's attempted purchase of a station because all stations should > > > > serve "the general public." In 1939, when Democrats ran Washington, > > > > the government conditioned renewal of one station's license on that > > > > station's promise to desist from anti-FDR editorials. > > > > > In 1969, when the Supreme Court declared the Fairness Doctrine > > > > constitutional, it probably did not know the Kennedy administration's > > > > use of it, as one official described it: "Our massive strategy was to > > > > use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing > > > > broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them > > > > that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to > > > > continue." > > > > > Richard Nixon emulated this practice. In 1973, Supreme Court Justice > > > > William Douglas, a liberal, said the doctrine "has no place in our > > > > First Amendment regime" because it "enables administration after > > > > administration to toy with TV or radio." The court's 1969 ruling > > > > relied heavily on the scarcity rationale. > > > > > But Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer, in their book A Manifesto for > > > > Media Freedom, note that today there are about 14,000 radio stations, > > > > twice as many as in 1969, and 18.9 million subscribers to satellite > > > > radio, up 17 percent in 12 months, and 86 percent of households with > > > > either cable or satellite television receive an average of 102 of the > > > > 500 available channels. > > > > > Because daily newspapers are much more scarce than are radio and > > > > television choices, should there be a Fairness Doctrine for The New > > > > York Times? The 1969 court dismissed as "speculative" the possibility > > > > that the Fairness Doctrine would cause broadcasters to "eliminate > > > > coverage of controversial issues." But the proper worry was that the > > > > doctrine would continue to stifle the flowering of controversy. A > > > > court that considers the doctrine today will note that whereas in 1980 > > > > there were fewer than 100 talk radio programs, today there are more > > > > than 1,500 news or talk radio stations. > > > > > Further subverting the "scarcity" rationale for government supervision > > > > of broadcast content, some liberals now say: The problem is not > > > > maldistribution of opinion and information, but too much of both. > > > > Until recently, liberals fretted that the media were homogenizing > > > > America into blandness. Now they say speech management by government > > > > is needed because of a different scarcity — the public's attention, > > > > which supposedly is overloaded by today's information cornucopia. > > > > > And these worrywarts say the proliferation of radio, cable, satellite > > > > broadcasting and Internet choices allows people to choose their own > > > > universe of commentary, which takes us far from the good old days when > > > > everyone had the communitarian delight of gathering around the cozy > > > > campfire of the NBC-ABC-CBS oligopoly. Being a liberal is exhausting > > > > when you must simultaneously argue for illiberal policies on the basis > > > > of dangerous scarcity and menacing abundance. > > > > > If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream > > > > media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they > > > > would be uninterested in reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Having so > > > > sullied liberalism's name that they have taken to calling themselves > > > > progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of > > > > reactionaries, which really is unfair. > > > > > George Will's e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hide quoted > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
