Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The False Assumption Underlying the Fairness Doctrine
Posted by: Billy Hollis on Wednesday, January 17, 2007

McQ’s post earlier today has already jumped on the left over the pretzel-like logic they use to defend the Fairness Doctrine. But it got me to thinking about the Fairness Doctrine in general. Is it an assault on free speech? Sure. But not just because Rush Limbaugh would have to shut up or cut back. The even bigger problem is that it’s based on a false and preposterous assumption.

The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there is “a view” and “an opposing view”. That’s silly. Let’s take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:

  1. "It’s real and we gotta do something now before the ocean swallows us.”

  2. “It’s real and it’s bad, and we’re causing it, but there isn’t much we can do about it.”

  3. “It’s probably real, and it’s probably our fault, so let’s do the best we can to mitigate it.”

  4. “It’s real and it’s bad, but it’s a natural phenomenon and people don’t have much to do with it.”

  5. “It’s not real. It’s a best a minor fluctuation in climate.”

  6. “It’s real, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so sit back and enjoy it.”

(Please no nit-picking over whether this is a correct or comprehensive list. Global warming is just an illustrative issue - the topic at hand is the Fairness Doctrine.)

If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, and you went on the radio with, say, #2, which of the others is the opposing view? Well, to some extent, they all are.

Let’s say the topic is Federal Program X. The five possible generic views would be:

• Spend a whole lot more on it
• Spend somewhat more on it
• Spend the same amount on it
• Spend somewhat less on it
• Spend nothing on it - abolish the program

If there’s a controversy over the federal program, which views are going to get presented under the Fairness Doctrine? Well, ultimately, that’s up to a government bureaucrat. Does anyone really think the “abolish the program” option is going to be one of the two preferred views? A government bureaucrat, or his proxy in the media, is naturally predisposed to believe in government effectiveness, so the bottom two views will usually be the ones that are completely ignored.

In the typical case of a social program, it boils down to a Democrat arguing that we should be spending somewhat more, and a Republican arguing that we should be spending the same. The roles might be reversed, if it’s something related to defense or corporate subsidies; though in that case, the “spend less” option would probably get more credibility, and the “spend a whole lot more” option would be considered fringe.

We don’t even debate the “abolish the program” option much now. Under the Fairness Doctrine, it disappears completely. And the growth of government goes unquestioned.

And that leads to what I consider the really pernicious effect of the Fairness Doctrine. By restricting the range of views down to the mushy middle, the debate becomes utterly boring. No one wants to hear two drones, one of which wants to spend a little more, with the other defending the status quo.

Of course, if the common citizen tunes the debate out because it’s boring, that leaves the field to the activists. Most of them are on the left, so the left is just fine with boring policies debates. They don’t want dittoheads emailing Congress because Rush got them pumped up about something.

I think a lot of support for the Fairness Doctrine is ultimately based on a contempt for the opinions of the common citizen. You can see it in the blather about “corporate influence”. The presumption is that common folks can simply be manipulated into any opinion their corporate masters desire.

I notice that they don’t seem to have any issues with how much money George Soros spends on politics. And that’s explicitly political spending. Talk radio, as McQ pointed out, is a money-making enterprise, and is not an explicit subsidy for a political viewpoint. Yet, because talk radio engages a swath of the common citizens in ways the left cannot, even with Soros’ help, the left is ready to throttle it. After all, those ignorant dittoheads don’t really deserve a place in the debate, do they? They’re just being manipulated into their opinions by corporate influence anyway.

I don’t see how someone can have such contempt for the common citizen and still believe in the founding principles of this nation. That’s why I think it’s easy for the left to jettison free speech whenever it’s convenient. From campus speech codes to campaign finance reform to the Fairness Doctrine, the left always seems to come down on the side that says their political opponents need to be throttled. And then, they twist themselves into pretzels pretending that they’re not violating free speech.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I don’t see how someone can have such contempt for the common citizen and still believe in the founding principles of this nation.
Uh because they don’t....It’s not that they’re not "patriotic", they’re Post-Modern. THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN THOSE PRINCIPLES. They believe in an elite shaping the Masses. They see the Masses suffering from False Consciousness, hence Whats Wrong With Kansas?.

To the most outre Po-Mo’s, those as PhD graduate students, the goal, explicitly, is to use Petit Bourgeois Freedoms and Values to undermine THOSE VALUES. "Speech for Me, not for Thee." As an example, in part because there are other factors at work there, q.v. Ward Churchill. He has a "Right" to say what he wants and any criticism of his right is called McCarthyism and Fascism. The result being that in the perfect world Ward can speak and only those who agree with him....As we say where I come from, "Good work if you can get it."

Po-Mo’s want to use the 1st Amendment to THEIR benefit, not because they agree with it, but it grants THEM a right to speak and it gives them "Victim" Status when they’re criticized and blunts attempts to call them on their speech, because who wants to violate a man’s right to speak his mind? They, in turn, have NO PROBLEM in trying to silence their foes. It’s mental ju-jitsu, they hide behind the 1st because it has meaning to McQ, not because they believe in it and will use every effort to deny McQ’s right to speak. They have no problem limiting McQ because they DON’T believe in the 1st.

Bottom-Line: they don’t believe in the Founding Principles or the citizens (Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, War, Inequality and Environmental Degradation). They believe in the Revolution (Equality, the end of Oppressive Hetero-Normaity, Socialism) and they believe in Power.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Let’s make the Dems who want to apply the "Fairness" Doctrine (sneer quotes intentional) to the radio that we should apply it to TV, the movies, and the internet.

I’ll bet you’ll be blinded by the dust of Dem politicians running away from the idea.

(Note: I don’t think the FD is a good idea at all. I don’t want any more government beauracracy. I don’t want shouting matches because only 2 viewpoints are represented and somebody’s got a 3rd viewpoint they think is equally valid but don’t have the platform for. Etc.)
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
"They believe in an elite shaping the Masses."

Ah, yes. The vanguard of the proletariat. Who says Communism is dead? It just got a makeover.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The foundation of the fairness docrine is in the public service and news requirements of broadcast media based on the free grant of frequencies.

The idea being that "we the people" GAVE these broadcasters exclusive rights to certain frequencies, and in exchange, we required them to dedicate a portion of their airtime providing public service, news, and information. It is that grant that people believe empowers the people (government) to require that broadcast media attempt to show opposing sides of controversial issues.

In my opinion, the fairness doctrine would be completely irrelvant and pointless in large media markets, where people really do get every side of every argument, should they choose to avail themselves of those information sources, from cable tv, to numerous newspapers, a large variety of radio stations, etc.

However, consider rural America, which is much less likely to have any of these, and to a greater extent than more urban areas, are more likely to get much more of their information from radio, and in these areas, it is much more likely to be conservative radio.

I have the same problems with the fairness doctrine as I have read here, but I also have problems with rural radio stations playing hour after hour of lying windbags with absolutely no hint of dissneting opinion, or even fact checking.

For these people, my opinion is that they barely get more diversity of thought and opinion than listeners of Radio Kim Jong Il.

That this is just a happenstance of the market does not make misinformation huge geographical areas any more palateable to me.

It’s funny though, if those rural radio stations were forced by law to play Air America or something along those lines, the reality is that a great many listeners, having been ditto’d to death, would most likely turn it off.

As far as the Soros comments, that’s ridiculous, Soro’s is one guy compared to dozens just like him on the other side of the political spectrum.

Richard Mellon Scaife
Bob Perry Jr
Paul Singer
Boone Pickens
Sam Wyly
Dick and Betsy DeVos

Take a look at the Board of the Heritage Foundation...

David R. Brown
Richard M. Scaife
J. Frederic Rench
Douglas F. Allison
Larry P. Arnn
Belden Bell
Holland H. Coors
Midge Decter
Edwin J. Feulner
Steve Forbes
Robert J. Herbold
William J. Hume
Lee M. Klinetobe
J. William Middendorf II
Brian Tracy
Phillip N. Truluck
Barb Van Andel-Gaby
Kay Cole James
Marion Wells

And the Manhatten Institute

Board of Trustees
Dietrich Weisman, Chairman of the Board; Neuberger & Berman
Byron R. Wien, Vice Chairman; Morgan Stanley & Co.
Roger Hertog, Chairman Emeritus; Alliance Capital Management
Charles H. Brunie, Chairman Emeritus; Brunie Associates
Richard Gilder, Chairman Emeritus; Gilder, Gagnon, and Howe & Co.
Lawrence Mone, President
Robert J. Appel, Appel Associates
Eugene D. Brody, Picanet Partners
Andrew Cader
Timothy G. Dalton, Jr., Dalton Enterprises
Peter M. Flanigan, UBS Warburg
Mark Gerson, Gerson Lehrman Group
Maurice R. Greenberg, American International Group
H. Dale Hemmerdinger, ATCO Properties & Management
John W. Holman, Jr., Hintz, Holman & Robillard
Bruce Kovner, Caxton Corporation
William Kristol, Editor of the Weekly Standard
Frank J. Macchiarola, St. Francis College
Walter Mintz, Cumberland Associates
Rodney W. Nichols
Edward J. Nicoll, Instinet Group Inc.
Peggy Noonan
James Piereson, John M. Olin Foundation
Joseph H. Reich, Beginning With Children Foundation
Richard Reiss, Jr., Georgica Advisors
Joseph L. Rice III, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc.
Robert Rosenkranz, Delphi Financial Group
Nathan E. Saint-Amand, MD
Lewis A. Sanders, Alliance Capital Management
Andrew M. Saul, Saul Partners
Robert Skidelsky
Thomas W. Smith, Prescott Investors
William K. Tell, Jr.
Thomas J. Tisch, FLF Associates
Walter B. Wriston
Kathryn S. Wylde, New York City Partnership and Chamber of Commerce
Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek International
Martin E. Zweig, Zweig Companies [4]

And how about these right win foundations who’s primary charitable function is to bankroll conservatives...

Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (Charles G. Koch Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Smith Richardson Foundation

Come on people, whining about Soros is ridiculous.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Ah, yes. The vanguard of the proletariat. Who says Communism is dead? It just got a makeover.
No one who has been to a liberal arts campus or department, that’s for sure...Three Cheers and a Tiger for Foucault, Derida and Marcuse!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I don’t see how someone can have such contempt for the common citizen and still believe in the founding principles of this nation.
Anyone can print a pamphlet or a newspaper, only a select few were GIVEN free and exclusive use of radio frequencies.

I agree that perhaps we should not reintroduce the fairness doctrine, but then we should open up the airwaves to anyone that wishes to broadcast and not have the government decide who can and cannot broadcast.

It might be messy, but it would be a free market.

If you want the current system sans fairness doctrine, then you want a government controlled market, except that you don’t want the government require any fairness by the exclusive licensees.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
That’s good Cap! Theres only Soros out there on the left valiantly fighting against all the rightwing hordes you mention.

That’s one of your more intellectually dishonest posts, and that says something since you set your bar pretty low
However, consider rural America, which is much less likely to have any of these, and to a greater extent than more urban areas, are more likely to get much more of their information from radio, and in these areas, it is much more likely to be conservative radio.

I have the same problems with the fairness doctrine as I have read here, but I also have problems with rural radio stations playing hour after hour of lying windbags with absolutely no hint of dissneting opinion, or even fact checking.

For these people, my opinion is that they barely get more diversity of thought and opinion than listeners of Radio Kim Jong Il.
Yee haw! Those toothless racist rednecks only have the 1 ray-de-o station in town and the local TV affiliate that shows endless religious programs! We have to enlighten them for their own good!

PS- I’m sure the denziens of the upper west side are just awash in diverse views! Some of them think Bush is hitler, while others merely think he’s the devil. Now THERE’S your diversity you pompus cretin.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Yee haw! Those toothless racist rednecks only have the 1 ray-de-o station in town and the local TV affiliate that shows endless religious programs! We have to enlighten them for their own good!
Amazing how you ignore my stated position and assign one I told you that I do not hold.
I have the same problems with the fairness doctrine as I have read here,
My answer is not the fairness doctrine, it is a bit more, ahem, libertarian. I suggest opening up the airwaves to anyone with a transmitter, not having the government say who is allowed to own the control the airwaves.

Got a problem with that?

That’s good Cap! Theres only Soros out there on the left valiantly fighting against all the rightwing hordes you mention.
When the topic is rich guys spending money supporting an ideology, Soros (and other left of center rich guys) is outmumbered dramatically.
PS- I’m sure the denziens of the upper west side are just awash in diverse views! Some of them think Bush is hitler, while others merely think he’s the devil. Now THERE’S your diversity you pompus cretin.
They elected a Republican didn’t they? There must be some diversity there. Doesn’t ann Coulter live on the Upper West side?

8 Republicans Represent NY in Congress

And then there’s Kansas... how many Democrats represent Kansas in Congress... ZERO

Diversity is an old, old wooden ship, used in the Civil War.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I suggest opening up the airwaves to anyone with a transmitter, not having the government say who is allowed to own the control the airwaves.
Interesting. What do you believe the practical implications of competing transmitters on various frequencies would be?
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Why on earth do we even have a Federal Communications Commission in the first place? What a silly, pointless buraucracy in a town filled with silly, pointless buraucracies.

I will wait on pins and needles for the usual suspects to rush in and tell us how many people will die if this important institution serving the common good were to disappear.........
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
However, consider rural America, which is much less likely to have any of these, and to a greater extent than more urban areas, are more likely to get much more of their information from radio, and in these areas, it is much more likely to be conservative radio.
What the satellite dish revolution bypassed the rural areas in this country. And of course the internet? Never heard of it.

What utter nonsense. The "Fairness Doctrine" was first instituted in 1949 when radio was one of the predominant ways in which news and opinion were disseminated. The doctrine was implemented based on the fear that control of the radio waves could find us in the same position that Germany found itself in prior to WWII. Of course then it was the government which controlled the airways.

Hello?!

This is an antiquated law based in an antiquated precept: that radio is the way people predominantly receive their news on issues. It’s nonsense and any fair observer can quickly survey the field and understand why "fairness" is only demanded in one area in which the ideology of those sponsoring the bill isn’t predominant. It is only in that portion of the media that they find a need for "fairness".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
And then there’s Kansas... how many Democrats represent Kansas in Congress... ZERO
So if the poor benighted Kansas residents had access to more than conservative brainwashing, they’d have elected lots of Dems to represent them, right?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
When the topic is rich guys spending money supporting an ideology, Soros (and other left of center rich guys) is outmumbered dramatically
I call BS. Please substantiate. From what I have seen it is actually the Democrats who have been most supported by large donors versus Republicans supported by large numbers of individual contributions.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Oh it’s BS alright, Lance ... check this out.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Oh it’s BS alright, Lance ... check this out.
Look at this list of the top individual donors to 527’s. So far, twenty-five individuals have contributed $58,218,283 to these groups. Of that total, 97% has gone to liberal and/or anti-Bush organizations and Soros and Lewis are responsible for nearly half of that money ($26,830,000) just between the two of them.
First off, that number is incorrect, where do these people learn math?

Republicans supporters on this list of the top 25 contributed $21M compared to Democrats $122 Million, that’s closer to 85% to 15%, not 97%, and don’t even think about that anti-Bush thing, the Republicans I noted contributed to Swift Boat Liars for Bush.

Secondly, this is one election cycle when the conservative President happened to piss off more people than any President since... heck, there may not be a precedent.

But the history of ideological spending is clearly in the conservative corner.

A lot of conservative spending was done years ago, creating foundations and think tanks with hundred of millions being directed toward the promotion of conservative ideology.

Compared to guys like Richard Mellon Scaife, Soros is a piker...
By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family’s charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions – about $620 million in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. The total of Scaife’s giving – to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries – exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate.
Democrats are learning from these guys, and have recently seen some wealthy democrats put their money where their ideology is, but this is recent phenomenon and may or may not live on past the debacle that is the George W. Bush Presidency. Already in 2006, the 85/15 split among big donors has dwindled to 65/35.

Cap



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Cap,
They learned math better than you learned how to use a calendar. McQ’s link went to a post from September 04 and showed the totals up to that point. Going back to the same list now shows the final totals, so the Republicans made up a little ground in the last few months of the election. For 2006 the split has ’dwindled’ to a two-to-one edge for the Dems. Given that time as we know it only moves in one direction and liberals started with a huge edge that is slowly shrinking, it appears that it’s the Republicans that are slowlw catching up.
Back to the Fairness Doctrine:
It’s funny though, if those rural radio stations were forced by law to play Air America or something along those lines, the reality is that a great many listeners, having been ditto’d to death, would most likely turn it off.
By that logic, after years of TV news being provided by Dan Rather and CNN, if an opposing news show channel was forced on to cable (in honor of the doctrine we’ll call it Fair, Or Xchange ideas) it would have terrible ratings and wouldn’t survive without government subsidies. Air America should also thrive in a liberal city, like Washington, DC, but is instead going bankrupt.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
A lot of conservative spending was done years ago, creating foundations and think tanks with hundred of millions being directed toward the promotion of conservative ideology.
Another claim you cannot substantiate and that is wrong. I remember reading something along those lines from (I think it was the NYT) and basically they got it by ignoring lots of liberal foundations and organizations by claiming they were not liberal. So critics responded by listing the ten largest liberal leaning institutions and lo and behold the top ten conservative ones were smaller by a huge margin than the individual liberal ones. In fact, the Rockefeller foundation contributions dwarf Scaife for just one example. If you don’t believe me, e-mail me and I’ll find some links. I don’t feel like bothering because the point is liberals have always gotten plenty of money and it has always been from fewer, more concentrated sources. Anyone who has followed political money knows this and really I don’t care. I have no problem with it other than getting sick of all the whining about how the rich don’t support liberals who are dependent on the wages of the poor or some other such nonsense.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
By that logic, after years of TV news being provided by Dan Rather and CNN, if an opposing news show channel was forced on to cable (in honor of the doctrine we’ll call it Fair, Or Xchange ideas) it would have terrible ratings and wouldn’t survive without government subsidies. Air America should also thrive in a liberal city, like Washington, DC, but is instead going bankrupt.
I find it completely laughable that you equate the network news, which at worst is slightly biased (but generally a corporate or statist tilt rather than liberal) to talk radio which has NO journalistic standards to be called on and not even the slightest expectation of balance or fairness.

Air America is in it’s infancy, and profitability will take years, if they survive. FOX News lost money for 5 years before they turned a profit. One could argue that the market did not support conservative biased news for the first 5 years of FOX’s existence. Business’ are risky and some models take years to become become profitable.

The idea of a liberal bias in the mainstream media is simply a myth.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The idea of a liberal bias in the mainstream media is simply a myth.

Cap
A study that proves the myth true.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The idea of a liberal bias in the mainstream media is simply a myth.
In my mind a ridiculous statement, but who cares? The fact is that others feel it is biased and it is that feeling that is supposed to be ameliorated, not some godlike objective body that can figure out if bias exists. Free speech implies allowing "biased" speech. There is no place, including rural America, that can’t get a variety of views from media. This argument is specious and your "money" arguments were just factually wrong.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Forging documents is ‘slightly biased? ABC instructing its personnel that they do not have to hold candidates equally accountable is ‘slightly’ biased? A journalist could not do anything more biased than fake the news or let their politics decide what qualifies to be reported.
I’m not equating talk radio and TV news. Talk radio hosts don’t claim to be news programs. There is an expectation that the network news be balanced and have higher journalistic standards because they claim to fulfill their public service agreement with their news programs. Unfortunately they don’t always live up to that expectation. Radio has more frequencies available, but they still must have unbiased news. The news on AM radio is usaully a feed from one of the national networks. That allows the hosts of the talk shows give commentary and be vehicles for discussion, and provides a clear distinction between what is being reported as news and what is commentary.
Talk radio has no expectation for the hosts to be neutral because they aren’t the ones doing the reporting, and the right-wing hosts freely admit they are conservative. They still have a duty to make sure any facts they choose to report are correct, and their journalistic standards are subject to daily live feedback. Every conservative radio host I’ve ever heard has allowed callers that don’t agree with them on the air. You just can’t get that with TV due to the format and the number of facts reported in a news program.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
The idea of a liberal bias in the mainstream media is simply a myth.
Like a Hydrogen snowflake falling onto a supernova, so goes your credibility.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
When the topic is rich guys spending money supporting an ideology, Soros (and other left of center rich guys) is outmumbered dramatically.....whining about Soros is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is when Democrats pretend that they are the party of the little guy who are concerned about income inequality. It is liberal mendacity that makes the political activities of a convicted-inside-trader scumbag like Soros newsworthy.

How about these liberal billionaires/multi-millionaires?

Peter Lewis
Ron Burkle
John Sperling
Steve Bing
Haim Saban
David Geffen
Eli Broad
Warren Buffet
Herbert Sandler
Marion Sandler
Ted Turner
Sergey Brin
Larry Page
Steven Spielberg
Teresa Heinz
Jeff Skoll
Linda Pritzker (and family)
Pat Stryker
Jon Stryker
Timothy Gill
John Hunting
Arthur Lipson

How about this gathering of 70 liberal billionaires and millionaires that Soros organized in Phoenix in 2005.

How about these multi millionaire current or former politicians?

John Rockefeller
Dianne Feinstein
Jon Corzine
Herb Kohl
Mark Dayton
Maria Cantwell

How about these liberal charitable trusts?

The Rockefeller Family Foundation
The Ford Foundation
The Kaiser Foundation
Alan Gutmacher Inst.


There are literally hundreds more examples but I can’t waste any more time trying to enlighten the ignorant.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
anonymous,

Exactly. Case closed.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
A study that proves the myth true.
Research SO bad that simply accepting the opposite of their conclusions would be no less flawed.


Dow Jones responds to UCLA media bias "study"

Statement by a spokesman for Dow Jones and Co.:

The Wall Street Journal’s news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident.

By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details.

First, its measure of media bias consists entirely of counting the number of mentions of, or quotes from, various think tanks that the researchers determine to be "liberal" or “conservative." By this logic, a mention of Al Qaeda in a story suggests the newspaper endorses its views, which is obviously not the case. And if a think tank is explicitly labeled “liberal” or “conservative” within a story to provide context to readers, that example doesn’t count at all. The researchers simply threw out such mentions.

Second, the universe of think tanks and policy groups in the study hardly covers the universe of institutions with which Wall Street Journal reporters come into contact. What are we to make of the validity of a list of important policy groups that doesn’t include, say, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO or the Concord Coalition, but that does include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Moreover, the ranking the study gives to some of the groups on the list is simply bizarre. How seriously are we to take a system that ranks the American Civil Liberties Union slightly to the right of center, and that ranks the RAND Corp. as more liberal than Amnesty International? Indeed, the more frequently a media outlet quotes the ACLU in this study, the more conservative its alleged bias.

Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers’ "study" of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is “studied” for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers.

Suffice it to say that “research” of this variety would be unlikely to warrant a mention at all in any Wall Street Journal story.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
8 Republicans Represent NY in Congress
Yes, Cap, but how many of those are members of the NYC delegation?

One, the rep from my Rock, Staten Island. And of 55 members of the NY City Council, the breakdown is something like 51 to four on the Democrat side.
 
Written By: TC@LeatherPenguin
URL: http://leatherpenguin.com/wordpress/
There are literally hundreds more examples but I can’t waste any more time trying to enlighten the ignorant.
It might help if you start with some self enlightenment.

These people are trying to do what I already explained the Republicans have been doing for 40 year.

From the story YOU linked to..
One source at the DNC with direct knowledge of the agenda said that the Phoenix Group had three specific goals at the outset. It wants to create liberal think tanks, training camps for young progressives and media centers.

Despite the general recognition that progressives are several years behind conservatives, liberal activists are confident that technology will help them close the gap. “Technology may allow us to do in a few years what it took the other side 40 years,” the DNC source said.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Yes, Cap, but how many of those are members of the NYC delegation?
And how many of the Kansas Democrats.... oops, there are none.

Point being, NY, even NY City, is more diverse than Kansas.

I live near Kansas, I go to Kansas on occasion, and what is amazing about Kansas to me is the rarity of people with awareness with other points of view.

It’s not like the denizens of this board, y’all may not agree with the other side of the argument, and in some cases completely misrepresent the other side of the arguments, but you are aware of the other side of the argument.

I am not suggesting that there is, or even should be a fix, I am just pointing out my observations.

However, for people that oppose the fairness doctrine, and support the government having total say on who is allowed to have exclusive broadcast frequencies, I find the position hypocritical.

Either make it a free market, or regulate fairness, but not the worst of both worlds.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
And how many of the Kansas Democrats.... oops, there are none.
Apparently, you don’t live close enough to Kansas to note that they have TWO Democratic congressmen in their delegation. One has been there for a few years (Dennis Moore represents uber-liberal Lawrence, home to a state university, as well as Kansas City), and Nancy Boyda just knocked off Jim Ryun, one of the few fiscally sane Republicans we had last congress (she represents the portions of Eastern Kansas that Moore doesn’t). That’s half of Kansas’s congressional representation, so if you are going to make major, easily verifiable errors in your early arguments, one has to wonder how many errors follow behind that. (FWIW, I live about as far away from Kansas as one can get and still live in the contiguous states, so it’s not a case of geographic familiarity on my part.)
 
Written By: timekeeper
URL: http://
so if you are going to make major, easily verifiable errors
If I were trying to make errors that were difficult to verify, that might indicate an intent to deceive, here I just screwed up, pulling up an old list I guess.

In any case, I did make a mistake.

Kansas, prior to 2 weeks ago, was represented by 3 Republican Congressmen, and 2 Republican Senators, with one Democratic Congressman, Dennis Moore, a Blue Dog Conservative Democrat.

Nancy Boyda won in the Democrat wave of the 2006 elections.

Senators: Sam Brownback (R), Pat Roberts (R)
Representative(s): Jerry Moran (R), Nancy Boyda (D), Dennis Moore (D), Todd Tiahrt (R)

I apologize for my error.

Kansas has not had a Democratic Senator since 1939 and of the 167 COngressional races in that time, Democrats have won 32, less than 20%.

In that time, New York has had 6 Republican Senators and 7 Democratic Senators and a far greater percentage of Republican Congressman than Kansas.

The point being that New York IS liberal, but far more diverse than Kansas.

Media diversity, particularly radio, may play a part.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Media diversity, particularly radio, may play a part.
Given the updated stats for Kansas, I’d say it’s working just fine, wouldn’t you?

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
regulate fairness
That’s the whole point to the series of posts on the subject: it’s impossible to regulate "fairness" because that’s not an objective standard. What seems fair to me may not to you. The government has no business regulating political speech.

As far as a free market of airwaves goes, I’ll betcha that there are a LOT more radio stations in this country than there are newspapers. So, the point of view coming from radio is necessarily more diverse than that coming from newspapers.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Given the updated stats for Kansas, I’d say it’s working just fine, wouldn’t you?
Given the performance of Republicans for the last 6 years, than ANYONE would vote for them is indicative of a sever conservative bias, wouldn’t you agree?

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Given the performance of Republicans for the last 6 years, than ANYONE would vote for them is indicative of a sever conservative bias, wouldn’t you agree?
LOL! Given whatever Cap, how do you pin the former lack of Dem Reps on supposed lack of diversity on radio? Apparently the dumb goobs in KS managed to figure it out without the "Fairness Doctrine" in place. Seems to argue against its necessity if you ask me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider