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

 
Does this guy scare anyone else?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, March 19, 2007

You remember Representative Maurice Hinchley (D-NY), don't you? He's the new chair of a House subcomittee charged with oversight of the FCC? He's also the chair of the "Future of American Media Caucus" in the House and chief sponsor of the "Media Ownership Reform Act" which would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the FCC to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.
For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the "corporate media."

With passage of his bill, Hinchey said that "progressives" would be able to demand and get "equal access" to programs hosted by conservatives and rebut the "baloney" of people like Limbaugh. "All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said about the influence of conservative media. By name, he also denounced Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting.
Instead of going away like a good extremist with ideas about government regulating speech, Rep. Hinchley is stepping up the attack:
Hinchey and a band of progressive members of Congress are putting aside their scramble eggs and taking the networks to task, complaining that the four Sunday Shows – ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday – feature more conservative and Republican guests than liberals and Democrats.

"The American people are the owners of the public airwaves, and the networks have an obligation and responsibility to use those airwaves to offer a balanced presentation of ideas and perspectives from Democrats and Republicans alike," Hinchey said Monday.

He and other liberal representatives are drawing on a new study from the left-leaning media watchdog, Media Matters for America, showing that all but one Sunday show favor conservative guests – even after Democrats seized control of both the House and the Senate last fall.

The study concluded that only This Week had a balance of viewpoints. The other three shows, the study found, booked at least 10 percent more conservative guests than those with more liberal viewpoints.

"A failure to provide balance is a disservice to the public and renders voters less able to evaluate the performance of our government," said Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y).
Notice who is going to tell us what is or isn't "balanced". Is that the standard we prefer? Or instead, shall we, the viewing public, make those sorts of choices with our remote control?

Hinchley and his henchmen prefer their arbitrary definition of "balanced" to your ability to choose what you prefer and punish shows which don't meet those preferences by not watching them. Instead, they prefer to decide what does or doesn't constitute balanced coverage and force it on you.

The first amendment is a prohibition against government making laws which abridge freedom of speech or the press concerning political speech.

It is very unambiguous in its language:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I continue to wonder what part of "make no law" Congressman Hinchley and his supporters don't understand.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If a media outlet wants to favor one political view over another, they’re at total liberty to do so... in writing. Or pantomime. Or while singing in the shower. Or from a soapbox on the sidewalk. If they wish to utilize a public resource available in very limited quantity, they have to abide by regulations that the public places on that resource. Broadcast TV spectrum is one such resource, and our regulations — rightly, I think — dictate that they cannot be used to favor one political opinion over another.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
If you don’t like the speech you are hearing, it’s easier to ban it, than respond to it. This seems to be behind the attempt to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine,”
Liberals have failed dismally in the battle of ideas in the media. “Air America,” (which ironically was the name of the CIA-Operated airline during the Vietnam War), has filed for bankruptcy. Generally, Liberal Commentators have lower ratings than their Conservative opponents. They can’t seem to figure out why, so they blame it on the gullibility of the American public, instead of their bankrupt policies and lack of humor. You may not agree with Rush Limbaugh, but you have to admit he can be hilarious.

When the only sources of over the air News were Radio and Television, you might argue the Constitutionality of “The Fairness Doctrine,” now with a plethora of information outlets, it is an obvious violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
dictate that they cannot be used to favor one political opinion over another.
Assuming, arguendo, that they do favor one political opinion, what law do you get this from and why do you believe it trumps the first amendment?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
If they wish to utilize a public resource available in very limited quantity, they have to abide by regulations that the public places on that resource. Broadcast TV spectrum is one such resource, and our regulations — rightly, I think — dictate that they cannot be used to favor one political opinion over another.
To echo ChrisB, where do you find this law that trumps the 1st Amendment?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This is designed to silence conservative talk radio.

Liberal talk shows aren’t economically viable. That’s been proven over and over. One reason for this is that liberals get their media from just about everywhere else and don’t need to resort to talk radio.

Anyway, forcing a radio station that has Conservative talk to also carry Liberal talk would garbage the profitability of 50% of the broadcasting. The radio station would have to end their talk format and go to music or weather.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Pangloss (Translation) "D@mn Rush Limbaugh and Faux News...we had such a thing going before them!"

Don’t like Bill OReilly, don’t watch Bill....Lord knows I don’t...as someone said at Reason, IIRC, what does a Multi-millionaire Ivy-League graduate REALLY have to be upset about?

Niether do I listen to Rhandi Rhodes nor Janeanne Garofolollolololololotflmao....

Heck I don’t listen to Howard Stern....

Pangloss you don’t HAVE to listen to Rush. Just hang out at FiredoggLake or MyDD or DU or the Daily Kos or the HuffPo or an IndyMedia site or read Australia’s The Age or listen to the BBC or well surely you get the ideer.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"The American people are the owners of the public airwaves, and the networks have an obligation and responsibility to use those airwaves to offer a balanced presentation of ideas and perspectives from Democrats and Republicans alike," Hinchey said Monday.


Of course, it is the individual stations that have that obligation and not the networks (except for stations they own or operate). And, of course, Hinchley, who chairs the committee that has oversight of the FCC, should know that.

Hinchley also ought to know that with cable, which is not "public airwaves", and the internet his censorship scheme will never work.





 
Written By: Bill H
URL: http://
what law do you get this from and why do you believe it trumps the first amendment?
I don’t know all the hinky ins and outs of Constitutional law, but the SCOTUS seems to think such activities rest within the purview of FCC regulation. They approved of the Fairness Doctrine and continue to rule that the FCC has a mandate to protect the interests of the public by regulating broadcast contents for purposes of decency.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
McQ,

I’ll answer for pangloss.

The networks don’t own the airwaves. The American Public does. It’s a simple private property issue. If I own the airwaves, I determine what can and can’t be said on the airwaves. If you and I together own the airwaves, we decide on what is broadcast on the airwaves. This is purely the extension of that principle to the people of the nation, since they are our airwaves, we determine what can and can’t be said on the airwaves through the political process.

Now, I personally think that’s a bunch of bullsh*t. After all, they say that freedom of the press goes to those who own one. I don’t see many newspapers being censored because they’re distributed on government roads (although I shouldn’t suggest it, because they might try). The airwaves, in some sense, are a commons. In another sense, though, it’s purely government’s restrictive regulations that are keeping technologies which get more information out of each bit of spectrum from seeing the market. It is purely the farce that it is a limited resource which gives the facade to hide behind.

It’s further bullsh*t because it assumes collective ownership of something that can’t be owned. But it’s a farce our government gladly perpetuates, because they can make big revenues auctioning off access rights to that "property".

Last, it’s a bullsh*t argument because the political process is often the worst possible method for making collective decisions that exists. Because politics is based on money, we don’t do squat about the airwaves based on our votes, the decisions are made based by the people with a vested interest in their regulations: media conglomerates and special interest groups who will spend their lobbying dollars.
 
Written By: Brad Warbiany
URL: http://unrepentantindividual.com/
dictate that they cannot be used to favor one political opinion over another.
This summarized the intent of the “Fairness Doctrine.” At that timer SCOTUS could reasonably claim the Law was “Constitutional”because there were only three sources for the public to view information.

That was many moons ago. Today we have more outlets for information than anyone can keep up with. A line of court decisions has laid a basis of president that would lead SCOTUS to rule any attempt by Washington to control political content unconstitutional.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
what law do you get this from and why do you believe it trumps the first amendment?
Any law the Supreme Court declares Constitutional. The Constitution gives the cour the power.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
it’s purely government’s restrictive regulations that are keeping technologies which get more information out of each bit of spectrum from seeing the market.
This is, of course, one perspective, but it was the government’s regulation that made those obsoleted technologies viable in the first place. Without that regulation and the enforcement thereof, there’s little to stop a broadcaster’s competitors from interfering with their frequencies or simply jamming them altogether. I doubt that any broadcaster wishes for the absence of the FCC.
It’s further bullsh*t because it assumes collective ownership of something that can’t be owned. But it’s a farce our government gladly perpetuates, because they can make big revenues auctioning off access rights to that "property".
An anarchist! Sweet.
Because politics is based on money
And, um, the market isn’t?
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
Today we have more outlets for information than anyone can keep up with.
True, and that’s a valuable line of reasoning for reaching the contrary conclusion. However, even though cable television, satellite television and our beloved internet have multiplied the number of media sources, it’s still the case that electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource, held in the commons by the public. The only force that’s going to stop people from using it injudiciously (and thus making it unusable to all) is the force of law.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
pangloss,

This is, of course, one perspective, but it was the government’s regulation that made those obsoleted technologies viable in the first place. Without that regulation and the enforcement thereof, there’s little to stop a broadcaster’s competitors from interfering with their frequencies or simply jamming them altogether. I doubt that any broadcaster wishes for the absence of the FCC.

Ahh, the old "if government didn’t do it, it never would have happened" argument. Couldn’t we just have simply have come up with some sort of a "Homestead Act" on the electromagnetic spectrum? I.e. if you find an area of the spectrum that isn’t being used and come up with a technology to exploit it, you have license to use that bit of the spectrum. Once most of the spectrum is covered, it becomes more of an issue of government simply enforcing the property rights of the providers, who are actually the owners of the spectrum.

And, um, the market isn’t?

Sure, the market is dominated by money. But there’s a difference between a market which is dynamic, and government which is largely static. But the market is notoriously good at ensuring the elimination of destructive monopolies when they become injurious to the ends of those with the money. Government enshrines those destructive monopolies into law.
 
Written By: Brad Warbiany
URL: http://unrepentantindividual.com/
it’s still the case that electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource,
Good point. Land is finite too, so I’m assuming you’re all about the government telling you where you can live and what you can do with your land too, right?

The only thing the FCC should even care about is ensuring who ever owns a spectrum slice at a certain location isn’t infringing on someone else’s spectrum elsewhere. Period. It has nothing to do with the content.

I can’t see how you leftists live with yourselves, licking the boots of your masters every morning. By granting Uncle Sam the power to shut down who they feel to be unfair (if you remember, you don’t get to vote on those kinds of things), then what’s to stop them from forcing all radio stations to carry the 500 Club and Limbaugh? You think the Democrats will always be in power?

You’re a fool to think the government does what it does out of benevolence and that it can be trusted to act in everyone’s best interest and not the few who control it. But, keep granting your masters more and more power. Before you know it, you’ll only hear Right Wing radio shows and the Jesus Hour because you gave the government all the control it wanted, and the wrong people got in charge and decided to use it.
I continue to wonder what part of "make no law" Congressman Hinchley and his supporters don’t understand.
The same part that goes along with "shall not be infringed". Just wait, before you know it, they’ll be using your house for barracks since pangloss doesn’t seem to mind the government trampling over the constitution.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
If a media outlet wants to favor one political view over another, they’re at total liberty to do so... in writing. Or pantomime. Or while singing in the shower. Or from a soapbox on the sidewalk. If they wish to utilize a public resource available in very limited quantity, they have to abide by regulations that the public places on that resource. Broadcast TV spectrum is one such resource, and our regulations — rightly, I think — dictate that they cannot be used to favor one political opinion over another.
I’m fine with broadcasters playing favorites (after all, we have been putting up with leftist CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and PBS for awhile now). What concearns me is politicians picking the views broadcasters can broadcast, and that appears to be happening now (somehow I suspect Maurice was fine with CBS and the forged Bush memos).

I say, let the broadcasters put out the politics they want, and let the market sort it out.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It’s further bullsh*t because it assumes collective ownership of something that can’t be owned. But it’s a farce our government gladly perpetuates, because they can make big revenues auctioning off access rights to that "property".
Uhh, the broadcasters get that spectrum for free.
Good point. Land is finite too, so I’m assuming you’re all about the government telling you where you can live and what you can do with your land too, right?
Right, there’s no land regulation by the federal or state gov’ts right now.
I can’t see how you leftists live with yourselves, licking the boots of your masters every morning. By granting Uncle Sam the power to shut down who they feel to be unfair (if you remember, you don’t get to vote on those kinds of things), then what’s to stop them from forcing all radio stations to carry the 500 Club and Limbaugh? You think the Democrats will always be in power?
As I understand the fairness doctrine, it had nothing to do with "shutting down who they feel to be unfair" - instead it had more to do with the right of reply; not that I would support bringing it back.
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
What a crock Pangloss. So who decides what is balanced or judicious? If that were the goal, who is qualified to determine such a thing?

Of course, finite or not, we still have plenty of choices, so why don’t we let the viewers and listeners decide what that balance should be? You can’t claim it is about actual judiciousness, since nobody is so unbiased as to be able to determine such a thing. I know many who would claim that Fox is the balance to the other networks. So what really will happen is that whoever gets the juice at the moment will make the decision. You better hope it isn’t a conservative, because you might not like the results on the networks.

It is about control, you have no standard which you can apply, but you want the power to to overrule the choices of the actual people viewing or listening, which is the best gauge of what people actually want, not you or your bureaucratic proxy. That is the ultimate in democratic choice, something liberals are always claiming they want, but can’t seem to stand allowing people to have. Choices are great, as long as you agree with them it seems.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
A quote:
And in the fall of 1926 the precedent for defining and defending those rights had been established in an Illinois court: Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station. Writes Hazlett, "the classic interference problem was encountered, litigated, and overcome, using no more than existing common-law precedent."

The Chicago Daily Tribune, calling itself WGN—"World’s Greatest Newspaper"—broadcast entertainment as a means of marketing its publication: each day’s edition listed that evening’s programming.

WGN filed a complaint in state court against another radio station, Oak Leaves, which had begun broadcasting in an adjacent wavelength. WGN claimed that it was necessary to maintain at least a fifty-kilocycle separation between stations located within 100 miles of each other. They accused the Oak Leaves station of injuring their lawfully acquired business property.

Chancellor Francis S. Wilson decided the case wholly within the legal tradition of property rights in common resources. His landmark decision, which established homesteading rights in "the ether," found precedent in western water rights, among other established property traditions. Wilson concluded the court was "compelled to recognize rights which have been acquired by reason of the outlay and expenditure of money and the investment of time. . . . We are of the further opinion that, under the circumstances in this case, priority of time creates a superiority in right. . . ."[11]

So the official history has it exactly backwards. The free market didn’t create a crisis that the government solved. The government created the crisis and the assignment of property rights was about to fix it. And as soon as the government realized this, they rushed in to keep the private solution from happening:

The Congress responded to Oak Leaves instantly. After years of debate and delay on a radio law, both houses jumped to pass a December 1926 resolution stating that no private rights to ether would be recognized as valid, mandating that broadcasters immediately sign waivers relinquishing all rights, and disclaiming any vested interests. The power to require such was the interstate commerce clause, but the motive was that Congress was nervous that spectrum allocation would soon be a matter of private law — Hazlett, 1990
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And another quote (same source as my last one):
In other words, the government and its historians have the problems right, but get the solution wrong—central planning and regulation are inferior to the price mechanism. Nothing in the nature of radio defies property rights. "The problem of radio interference was examined by analogy with electric-wire interference, water rights, trade marks, noise nuisances, the problem of acquiring title to ice from public ponds, and so on." So, asks Coase, "If the problems faced in the broadcasting industry are not out of the ordinary, it may be asked why was not the usual solution . . . adopted for this industry?"
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So the official history has it exactly backwards. The free market didn’t create a crisis that the government solved. The government created the crisis and the assignment of property rights was about to fix it. And as soon as the government realized this, they rushed in to keep the private solution from happening
One marvels at the wholesale exclusion of the courts from "government."
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
Instead of going away like a good extremist with ideas about government regulating speech, Rep. Hinchley is stepping up the attack:
Well, he has McCain-Feingold as a stalwart guidon.

G0dd@amn the man to hell.

Either of them, really.

It’s all too fvcking depressing.

Is it out of line to pray Hinchley has no success at all? I swear I’d rather he was hit by a bus.

I’d feel bad for his family, but the 1st amendment’s more important than him or me, really.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Does this guy scare anyone else?
He’ll scare me if he wins.

’Til then, back to the St. Geo. Brewery Imperial Stout, and the lovely six-pack it comes in.

Cheers.

Yours, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
There is a huge difference between “regulating the airways” and “regulating content” The FCC has a valid function operating as a traffic cop, keeping one station from bumping into another. The airways cannot operate in a state of Anarchy. Like a freeway is divided into lanes, the spectrum has been divided into parts. The various parts have been allocated for different use. This is analogous to traffic laws.

The concept the airwaves are owned by the public and administered by the government was taken from public land law. You may complain, but this is settled law.

What the government cannot do since the repeal of the fairness doctrine is control the content of content in the political realm. Congress has passed laws regulating non-political content. Outlawing cigarette advertising is a good example. Stations as part of the agreement granting them licences promise to operate in “the public interest” The definition of “the public interest” is mutabile. Once it required “public service programing” documentaries, children programing and the like. Now under “deregulation” the “public interest” rules have been scraped. All of this has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, under interstate commerce law.

When the court ruled the “fairness doctrine” constitutional, it made it clear it was doing so only under the “unusual” circumstances of limited competition. Competition is no longer limited, president has been established over the years that makes reintroduction of the “fairness doctrine” highly unlikely. Politicians who are pushing for its return are playing to their base. There talk, while scarey for those who value open dialogue, is hot air. Given the current political make up of congress and a Republican President, there is virtually no chance the “fairness doctrine” will return. If for some reason it did rear its ugly head, courts, following president, would quickly chop it off.

All this brouhaha is more about raising money. This is the kind of issue interest groups can use to fleece more money out of the faithful.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Honestly, this is how I figure the subconcious inner monologue of a Democrat goes,

Look at the child Columbia, born 1775. I don’t like what her success confirms to be true about humanity, so I’m going to cut her tongue out and blind her. Hamstringing’s next, so she can’t show up the ineffably—unprovably—superior socialist sphere.

They keep this up, and 2008’s gonna be a bad year for Democrats.

Pissants, every one of them.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
In this I also must agree for the most part with McQ. Where does this go? Do we need to allow the Communists, the Fascists and (gasp!) the libertarians equal time as well!? But with satellite radio and television expanding, these regulations are likely becoming anachronistic anyway.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
In this I also must agree for the most part with McQ.
So which part of the first amendment do you think we should ignore?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Uhh, the broadcasters get that spectrum for free.

Hmm... I did a quick check and I see that the FCC does auction off portions of the spectrum for certain wireless tasks, I assumed that also occurred for broadcasters. If I was wrong, mea culpa.

One marvels at the wholesale exclusion of the courts from "government."

Libertarians are typically in favor of government helping us to protect our private property. What we don’t like is government telling us how to use said property.

It appears that the courts had already accomplished the former, the FCC is currently doing the latter.
 
Written By: Brad Warbiany
URL: http://unrepentantindividual.com/
In this I also must agree for the most part with McQ. Where does this go? Do we need to allow the Communists, the Fascists and (gasp!) the libertarians equal time as well!? But with satellite radio and television expanding, these regulations are likely becoming anachronistic anyway.
Scott,
Look hard enough and you can find them all.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
"The American people are the owners of the public airwaves, and the networks have an obligation and responsibility to use those airwaves to offer a balanced presentation of ideas and perspectives from Democrats and Republicans alike," Hinchey said Monday
Where does this go? Do we need to allow the Communists, the Fascists and (gasp!) the libertarians equal time as well!?
Indeed. A large and influential segment of the voting public- the swing bloc as a matter of fact- are independents.

Where on this line up do the independents get their time? At 3:00AM right before the Ron Popeil infomercial?

And just which Dem viewpoints get aired? The Joe Lieberman view? The KOS view? The Zell Miller view? Which GOP viewspoint? Arnie? Newt? McCain? Who sits there and checks off the official partyspeak viewpoint? Does poor Neil Boortz get reduced to podcasting only? Not to mention what you can do in sportstalk radio! Hosts who root for the Giants have to make way for Cowboys fans! Cardinals fans move over, the Cubbies fans get equal time on the Cardinals post-game show.
The study concluded that only This Week had a balance of viewpoints. The other three shows, the study found, booked at least 10 percent more conservative guests than those with more liberal viewpoints
If you want REAL balance instead of silencing your critics, you should demand that media (print, broadcast etc) had a diverse mix of left AND right writers, editors and anchors. For example, if you want real balance, shouldn’t Bill O’Reiley take over Olbermanns show? *(not that O’Reiley would bring himself down so far but you get the idea)* Shouldn’t Jennifer Loven at the AP be replaced by Michelle Malkin? Chris Matthews replaced by McQ? Pinch Sulzberger forced to see either the Times or the Globe to Glenn Reynolds?

Where does it end? I dunno, but I’m sure the results will be doublepluss good!
I’d feel bad for his family, but the 1st amendment’s more important than him or me, really
I dunno....he must be a real joy to be around at home.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Uhh, the broadcasters get that spectrum for free
.

When over the air television moves to it’s new Digital frequencies, their old ones are going to be auctioned off too.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
PS- I’d be incredibly interested to see if the big 3 nets and the cable biggies like CNN will go along with this for their very temporary gain at the expense of FOX and talk radio.

If they do, they sign their own death warrant. But they were never really that smart to begin with.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"does this guy scare anyone else"

Why, of course.
Why do you suppose I was so vocal in my opposition to the idea of inserting democrats into office as a punishment for wayward republicans? I said at the time it would be more damaging... and so it is, if this guy gets his way... and I have no reason to doubt he will...
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
If he gets away with this abuse of power, yes.

This makes me think back to the "scandal" at PBS a while back when a conservative tried to get what he saw as equal PBS airtime devoted to conservative issues...He even went so far as to hire a firm (conservative as well IIRC) to justify his position...

He faced such an uproar that he resigned I believe...

I recall my thoughts at the time being that he was correct in asserting his position because PBS is funded by taxpayer dollars...

In this case I’m failing to see why this would apply to commercial enterprises...

(That means I’m open to opinion...;)

The market should determine content, not Big Brother...imho
 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
A line of court decisions has laid a basis of president


James - just a note to help you make your point - it is precedent, not president. You’ll get the crazies thinking it’s all Bush’s fault. Oh wait...
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
It’s astounding to me that they haven’t gotten around to this yet, because I’ve seen it before.

My father was once a moderator at what I am convinced was the first "hate-speech" 24/7 talk radio station in America, and without question the first that anyone in my family ever knew of. KTRG-FM (Honolulu) was a hotbed of conservative/libertarian/rational anarchist thought in the late 60’s. In 1971, the FCC declined to renew their broadcast license. The Watumull family (the owners) calculated that the costs of litigation were not worth the effort at futility, and the place went dark in 1971. I was in the studio the night of that final broadcast.

It scared the hell out of me, and I have never understood why this capricious power is not flexed far more routinely.

They’ll get around to it, though.

"Give ’em enough rope, and they’ll hang us all."
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I have never understood why this capricious power is not flexed far more routinely.
Mostly because to do so risks a reaction from the sheep.
Every once in a while, though, stays below the noise level, and thereby un-noticed.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
This makes me think back to the "scandal" at PBS a while back when a conservative tried to get what he saw as equal PBS airtime devoted to conservative issues...He even went so far as to hire a firm (conservative as well IIRC) to justify his position...
The Democrats howled like banshees over the possibility a conservative position would be shown on PBS. That network is reserved for liberalism and the attempt to change that resulted in his resignation.

The question now is, with so many sources of information and entertainment out there, why are we still paying for a “Government” television network. When there were just three commercial networks, there may have been a justification for PBS, that is no longer the situation.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
The Democrats howled like banshees over the possibility a conservative position would be shown on PBS. That network is reserved for liberalism and the attempt to change that resulted in his resignation.
As a father of young children I think the purpose of PBS is Thoms the Tank Engine, Caillou, Clifford the Big Red Dog, etc. Cartoons with no commercials!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Stolen funds for no commercials for my kids!"

You contemptible slug.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"Stolen funds for no commercials for my kids!"

You contemptible slug.


Hmmm, do you drive on the interstate, Billy? These shows are sponsored by funds from corporations, member contributions, and some state money. The interstate is funded primarily by government. You seem to think its wrong for me to use something in my interest because state funds are involved — do you hold yourself to the same standard? Or do you find a way to rationalize when you use "stolen funds"?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"You seem to think its wrong for me to use something in my interest because state funds are involved..."
Don’t even try to come on as if you would ever object to the forcible funding of PBS or interstate highways or anything else that your "stable functioning society" wanted to gouge out of the lives of people who would not pay for it if not for the direct threat of force.

You are not a moral/political agnostic in this, and we both know it, even if we’re the only ones around here who know it, and even if it pleases you to prance around the matter like a prom queen.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Don’t even try to come on as if you would ever object to the forcible funding of PBS or interstate highways or anything else that your "stable functioning society" wanted to gouge out of the lives of people who would not pay for it if not for the direct threat of force.

You are not a moral/political agnostic in this, and we both know it, even if we’re the only ones around here who know it, and even if it pleases you to prance around the matter like a prom queen.
So since you "object" to taxation you are not contemptible when you use something for your own self interest that is paid for by taxes, but since I don’t object to taxation, wanting commercial free cartoons for my kids (albeit with statements before and afterwards on whose contributions funded it — and with my paying membership fees yearly) makes me contemptible. I knew you’d find a way to rationalize the double standard! I have no idea what your last paragraph means (I’m certainly not a moral agnostic, at least insofar as I understand the term); suffice it to say that insults on the net don’t have the same kind of impact they did ten years ago. I don’t think you create the persona you believe you are.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I knew you’d find a way to rationalize the double standard!"
It’s not a double-standard, and you know it, you lying wart. If there were any way in the world that I could get these fatted ticks out of my markets and starve them from sucking the blood of people who do not value what they are, I would. You actively cultivate them with every single thing you ever post, and with every day that you go posing at your "job".

I’m not like you, Erb. I stand for freedom, and you don’t.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
fatted ticks out of my markets
Alas, it’s not just your markets but also theirs, and they don’t share your view on how they should operate.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
If "progressives" (like progress and statism are really synonymous), with their well-known devotion to liberty, get their way and force conservative and libertarian talk-shows to let them be on their shows, I hope the talk-show hosts revile and insult them mercilessly. "Todays idiot guest is a well-known tax-and-spend junkie who moronically thinks taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the State is a way to pormote prosperity. . . ." And not even debate them but just make fun of them. Normally this would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for me to ridicule, insult and torment a guest in my home. But if you force yourself into my home, you’re not a "guest" but an intruder, and deserve what you get. Scorn and abuse would be the civil alternative to shooting.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Alas, it’s not just your markets but also theirs, and they don’t share your view on how they should operate.
Which is no excuse for the fatted ticks deciding how we all operate.

Even theoretically, that takes a constitutional amendment to be legitimate, and it’s not a test most of the fatted tick’s activities can pass.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Which is no excuse for the fatted ticks deciding how we all operate.

Even theoretically, that takes a constitutional amendment to be legitimate, and it’s not a test most of the fatted tick’s activities can pass.
Well, if you’re talking about the that started this thread, I agree that limits should not be put on the media to try to silence talk radio or bring ’balance’ to the airwaves. So on this issue I’m with you. I understood Billy to be talking more broadly about the market as per his anarcho-capitalist perspective.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So, Erb, tell us.....what is the stated purpose of the Pablum Broadcasting System? To give voice to those who supposedly have none. So,Ignoring the new world of communications, that has sprung up around us, what is PBS, but a taxpayer funded effort to bring "balance" to the airwaves? By your own admission, that kind of thing shouldn’t be happening.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
So, Erb, tell us.....what is the stated purpose of the Pablum Broadcasting System? To give voice to those who supposedly have none. So,Ignoring the new world of communications, that has sprung up around us, what is PBS, but a taxpayer funded effort to bring "balance" to the airwaves? By your own admission, that kind of thing shouldn’t be happening.
I’m against federal laws requiring all stations using the public air waves to provide political balance between right and left. I’m not against PBS.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But that’s the stated purpose of PBS. Says so, right in their governmentally written charter.

So, when are you going to be calling for the demise of PBS, Erb?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
"wanting commercial free cartoons for my kids (albeit with statements before and afterwards on whose contributions funded it — and with my paying membership fees yearly) makes me contemptible"

Only if you want someone else to pay for it, as is the case with PBS. I am sure there is, somewhere amongst the multitude of channels on cable/satellite/etc., one that has commercial-free cartoons. If not, there is always blockbuster.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

Only if you want someone else to pay for it, as is the case with PBS. I am sure there is, somewhere amongst the multitude of channels on cable/satellite/etc., one that has commercial-free cartoons. If not, there is always blockbuster.
I choose to pay membership dues to PBS.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I choose to pay membership dues to PBS."

If it was only membership dues that supported PBS, there would be no problem. You conveniently ignore the support involuntarily provided by taxpayers.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
If it was only membership dues that supported PBS, there would be no problem. You conveniently ignore the support involuntarily provided by taxpayers.
So I assume you avoid interstates and highways funded by taxpayer money?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
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