• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Jim Carr of Broomfield writes:

Let me get this straight, for the last 5 years the DemoStalinists have been screaming about their right to free speech and right to decent, which I agree they have. Now the same Demostalinists want to renew an outdated outmoded “Fairness Doctrine” in order to make sure we have balance in the media. So the left wing media at NPR, PBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, CNBC and 95% of the printed press is not enough? Should the doctrine apply to them as well?
If they truly want balance, than let’s expand the fairness doctrine to public schools and balance out the education system. Since they claim these are public airwaves then they should have no problem with public school fairness since according to their argument they are both publicly owned.
I believe it was the Nazis who took over and controlled the press when they came into power, sound familiar? The Demostalinists sound more like Hugo Chavez than freedom loving Americans.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Nice job of showing off your stupidity, Dim-Jim. Keep farting the dumb fart, you're an example to numbnut scum everywhere.

Rule #1 of debate:

First one to call his opponent a Nazi loses.

And it's "dissent", not "decent" moron.

Wow--so much stupidity on display for all to see.

I suppose it is the evil left wing that owns these media outlets, right? Like those well know libs Rupert Murdock and the Rev. Moon? Or those commies at Disney, GE and the like?

The more I read these posts, the more convinced I am that you have to willfully ignorant to be "conservative".

God forbid you have an original thought. Just keep regurgitating those talking points...

hmmmmmmmm yep you do a wonderful regurgitating job every time you attempt to speak or write.
guess you can not handle a little competition on the airwave since your air america fell on its face so fast.

Rule #2 of debate, first one to correct someone’s grammar is a loser too

Nameless Nazi

Jim, you make a good point, equal doesn’t mean = in the liberal dictionary, it’s more like > for me,

FYK,

What specifically do you disagree with regarding Mr. Carr's comments?

John II:

Do you happen to know which democrats are clamoring for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated?

Gee... It's soooo ironic that people who can say soooooo much about the virtues of diverity and tolerance can be sooo LIVIDLY intolerant of positions they dont agree with

Concentration of media ownership is a serious problem today just as concentration of industrial ownership was during Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting time.

"In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … [I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … [I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … [I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

— Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000)"

And since that book was published in 2000 the media has become even more concentrated.

People are right to point to the proliferation of information sources, more radio and TV and cable stations. But as the quote below points out, that may be an illusory benefit if more and more of those outlets are controlled by the same people. It doesn't help if the same corporation now has five hundred stations rather than only one hundred, especially if that corporation. Today, it seems to be less one station complaining about another station than one media giant complaining about another media giant.

"Defenders of narrowing control of the media point, accurately enough, to the large numbers of media outlets available to the population: almost 1,700 daily papers, more than 8,000 weeklies, 10,000 radio and television stations, 11,000 magazines, 2,500 book publishers … and more … Unfortunately, the large numbers deepen the problem of excessively concentrated control. If the number of outlets is growing and the number of owners declining, then each owner controls even more formidable communications power.

— Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000)"

Yes, there are many independent, as well as controlled, blogs. But the blog audience is very small compared to the audience for mainstream media.

Waaal now! Fellers and gals. Seems as ifn someun's atryin ta compare tha days o "Oxydol's Own Ma Perkins" with tha likes o Mushmouth Limburger - er whatever his name air - t'day. Sorta reminds me on atryin ta compare watermelons an horse pucky.

Ol Ma war entertainin, airyways; sorta like a grownup "Our Gal Sunday", what done found happiness; tho ifn memry serves, twarnt with no "wealthy and titled Englishman" in Ma's case.

An then there war "Roy Acuff and the Smoky Mountain Boys" on tha "Grand Ol Opry" fer them as liked music. An I guess we orter menshun thet thar Metropolitan Opera, outin NooYark City too.

An all them thar good weather reports, areadin o tha stock prices - livestock thet is - an tha local news; with Saturday baseball, an good ol Dizzy Dean an Pee Wee Reese ta boot.

Them shore nuff war tha days fer radio! An usns hyar in America didn't have ta pay no license fee - like tha English still do t'day - jest ta own one neither.

Course, tain't much ta do with thet thar "Fairness Doctrine" idee; but seems ta me thet the idee ain't got much ta do with radio t'day neither. Sorta like alockin tha barn door long atter the horse done been sold off ta tha dog food factory; an tha farm done been made inta a condominium complex, er some sich.

Course, thar still air them as think tha buggy whip factry is agonna re-open, too. So, I guess it takes all kinds, as the ol sayin goes.

Ole Grouch. Ye must be o'fair and goode gent by tell oyer prose.I recollect when eer thee wordes did spake of promissed virtues. Nowseems needs be obfuscation is thet which attain thee ears of folk .how tru thet bard were "atale told by annd idiot, full of sounde an fury, signifying nothing.

Charles B.,

Here's the actual bill introduced in 2005. Since then, a few more Democrats have signed on.

Here's the names of the Democrats who sponsored the bill:

"Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. HOLT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FILNER, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. OWENS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce"

Republicans used to be the biggest cheerleaders for the Fairness Doctrine. That is, until they started to reap the political advantages afforded to them by the rise of conservative talk radio following the Doctrine's demise. Now, suddenly, they don't think the Fairness Doctrine is such a good idea. Surprise, surprise.

If conservative talk is so popular, why don't the providers of this content take it over to satellite radio where they can charge consumers what the market will bear for their rantings rather than freeload off of the PUBLICLY-OWNED airwaves?

We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in order to make sure that the public airwaves are used to further the public's interest. Nobody can make a logical argument that the public's interest is being served by a steady diet of one-sided, illogical political ranting. Nothing has contributed more to the decline of civil political discourse in this country than talk radio. With the myriad of alternative media outlets available today (compared to 1987 when the Doctrine was discontinued), there is no excuse for any content provider to rely on the public airwaves. Take it to the Internet, satellite radio, or even cable TV - none of these outlets would be affected by a new Fairness Doctrine. You can demonize, fearmonger, and bloviate to your hearts' contents there without infecting a public resource with your uninformed, uneducated drivel (from the left OR right -- it matters not).

Although I'm not a Democrat, one of the reasons I will be voting for a Democratic candidate in 2008 is the sincere hope that he (or she) will, if successful in the election, restore the Fairness Doctrine in short order as FCC policy (no need for Congressional action). The Supreme Court already upheld the Fairness Doctrine in 1969, so its constitutionality is settled. No more excuses.

John II:

Thanks for the info. So do you think it's fair to generalize that "Democrats" are all clamoring to bring back the fairness doctrine because 10 or so have signed on?

Charles B. Of course he does, John II never exaggerates.

July 6, 2007 04:09 PM coward...

So, you're not intellectually competent to address my questions? How typical. Guess that proves my point.

FWIW, I've never listened to Air America, nor do I have any desire to. Talk radio is for the small minded who can't think for themselves (or those who just need a good laugh).

It would have been nice to have had a fairness doctrine in late 2002 and early 2003 which would have required the media to do other than to echo what the Bush administration was saying about the need to invade Iraq. That might well have saved us from the current Iraq disaster.

There is a considerable move by the media to cut back on their live presence in foreign countries, and a considerable move to cut back on investigative journalism.

These movements away from the kind of journalism we need in order to have good government are partly the result of the concentration of the media into the hands of a few giant conglomerates.

We badly need a fairness doctrine that will reverse that trend. A well informed electorate depends on it and the democratic (or, if you prefer, the republic) form of government depends on it.

It's quite true that the government will likely make a number of wrong decisions and will sometimes do the will of the corporations rather than that of the people, but I'd rather have the government watching the hen house than the foxes. E.g. The government makes some blunders in its regulation of, for example, food and drugs, but that beats the alternative of the food and drug industry "regulating" itself.

Truth,

Instead of working to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or something like it, I would suggest anyone interested in preserving the free flow of information get involved in the fight to preserve Net Neutrality.

The future of journalism is on the Web. We cannot let the same corporate propagandists who own the print media, broadcast networks and cable television become the toll-masters of the internet.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly