Since the government, meaning YOU, pay for national public radio, I think we should test out the fairness doctrine and see how it works.
The problem with me talking about NPR or anything else that is slanted liberal is that liberals simply refuse to admit these things are slanted liberal. NPR's very small audience is mostly liberal...so wouldn't you say that the programing might be at least slightly liberal?
So lets have a guy with a stop watch time ten minutes of liberal bashing on Bush or the war or some problem with funding in education, then there has to be ten minutes of conservative viewpoint.
Sounds fair...
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Fairness doctrine, where to start...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
Won't work game, Liberals think they have a right to talk over, interrupt, repeat their point endlessly, and to "correct" the conservative on his time, not theirs.
actually, they think whatever they say is simply mainstream, what everyone else thinks...so they can say whatever they want and that is fair speech. It is when they hear things that they do not agree with that are slanted and biased.
The problem with me talking about NPR or anything else that is slanted liberal is that liberals simply refuse to admit these things are slanted liberal.
The problem with making assertions is that you have to prove them if you want any of the rest of us to believe them.
Showing an example of Ann Coulter being quoted verbatim and then saying "it's bias and if you don't believe it you're teh stoopid" doesn't prove anything.
and to "correct" the conservative on his time, not theirs.
I don't know what that means. Game invited me here from over at theamericanmind.com, so if I'm on "his" time, it's at his behest.
That's not even the way the Fairness Doctrine works (and worked, for over sixty years, before Reagan schialvo'ed it).
It only ensures that a fair representation of American opinion is presented, across the board.
The timing is flexible, not contained to any one program (or even any one programming day), and anyone who actually believes there will be anyone with a stopwatch needs to be held for observation, for the public's good.
The radical voices of right-wing fundamentalism have had a stranglehold on the public airwaves for too long, and this recalibration of talk radio is long past due.
The neocons have no one but themselves to blame, for their abuses.
Ha. I wish NPR received sufficient government funding, then they wouldn't have beg-a-thons all the time.
I can totally see how you're threatened by The News from Lake Wobegon. That Garrison Keillor, what a revolutionary. On Car Talk they only discuss hybrids and never give any time to SUVs. And then they play that classical music to turn your kids gay. Why don't they just call it All Communist Things Considered? Geez.
Chet,
I'm still waiting for that list of Conservative programs on NPR and PBS from you. So far you haven't been able to name one. If you can't name any, then the bias is to the left by default.
Hash, It only worked for lefties like you. You didn't get muzzled like the right did. Now, you can't compete in the arena of ideas and now are resorting to government censorship. In and of it self is a violation of the 1st amendment, not that you care a fig about anyone else's rights.
I'm still waiting for that list of Conservative programs on NPR and PBS from you.
No, you're not - if you'd check the thread. Posted it yesterday.
But, you know, just keep spewing your hilarious falsehoods.
First, let's see the weak reply Chet gave:
"Let's start with my local PBS station for non-liberal programming:
Charlie Rose (sitting on the board of directors for Citadel Radio, he's clearly no liberal)
We've previously noted that Frank Luntz is going to be providing election coverage
The Maclaughlin Group ran for years; since John MacLaughlin is conservative, that makes the panel majority conservative.
Lewis Ruckheiser's show ran for years (before he died.)
And, of course, liberals were up in arms about PBS's plan to run a documentary" on the tradition of American secular government that relied on falsified information and revisionist history from an ultra-right-wing organization dedicated to destroying the seperation of church and state.
That's not even a complete list. That's what I could find in ten minutes standing here in the computer lab."
McLaughlin had more libs on it than Conservatives.
Charlie Rose is no Conservative.
I never watched Louis, but I understood his was a "money" show, not news and "opinion".
Now, in all the hours that PBS and NPR broadcast, this is all you thought was Conservative? That's not even 5% of the broadcast schedule.
Chet, you are really deluded. Next you'll tell me Gwen Ifill is not a liberal leading a liberal show. I remember when Gwen said before the 94 election, "that WE will not lose the House". Um, no one challenged her on her bias. 1. No reporters were members of the House, let alone a majority. 2. That was not an objective statement, but a partisan one from a Partisan Leftwing Democrat.
Now, Chet, do you want to continue to embarass yourself? How far left are you? If anyone on NPR or PBS is to the right of Noam Chomsky are you calling them a Conservative?
Hash,
You are truly demented if you ever thought there was any "Balance" under the Fairness Doctrine. The right is still waiting for their time on NPR, PBS, and the broadcast networks.
Nevertheless, things will be better.
I listened to Jordan Sekulow totally misrepresent the Fairness Doctrine during a live broadcast from Jerusalem on behalf of the American Center of Fairness and Justice, and it's pretty easy to see how the right-wing extremists can distort reality, even from great distances from American shores (perhaps even because of it).
The Fairness Doctrine served the nation well for DECADES prior to 1987, when Reagan prompted the gutting of our media. There is an unholy alliance between multinational corporate interests and the media programs they use to control the middle class, with hysteria and lies.
Restoring fairness in our media is the best way to get this country back onto track. Liberals have been intimidated and shut out of talk radio for too long.
Hash,
The Fairness Doctrine only served Liberal Democrats and no one else.
Hash, you are a totalitarian. You do not wish to let the people make their own choices. You rail about the rich and the moneychangers, but all that is Communist bushwa designed to obfuscate your desire to monopolize the speech in this country by utilizing the brutal boot of government.
McLaughlin had more libs on it than Conservatives.
Only if you can't count, I guess. I'm going from the panel that was on it when I grew up, to start:
Elanor Clift - Liberal
John McLaughlin - conservative
Fred Barnes - conservative
Morton Kondracke - conservative/libertarian
So that's three to one. Currently the program is
John
Tony Blankley - conservative
Elanor Clift
Pat Buchanan - (come the fuck on)
plus the occasional guest; even at 100% liberal guests (which obviously isn't the case), that would still be 3 conservatives to 2 liberals.
I never watched Louis, but I understood his was a "money" show, not news and "opinion".
Maybe you shouldn't comment about shows you've never seen. Louis Ruckheyser was one of the preeminent economics commentors of his day - he certainly had plenty of opinion on his show.
Now, in all the hours that PBS and NPR broadcast, this is all you thought was Conservative?
No, that's all I could get in ten minutes - like I said - but it's more than enough to prove you completely wrong. Remember that your contention was that PBS had no conservative programming at all? I mean, you wouldn't be trying to move the goalposts now and all, right?
Next you'll tell me Gwen Ifill is not a liberal leading a liberal show.
I don't know who Gwen Ifill is.
Now, Chet, do you want to continue to embarass yourself?
I haven't, yet, but I thought I'd go on embarassing you - by continuing to show how woefully inaccurrate almost every single one of your statements turns out to be.
The problem with making assertions is that you have to prove them if you want any of the rest of us to believe them.
Not necessarily. Reasonable people shouldn’t have to prove what should be evident to another reasonable person.
Any reasonable person, that’s spent any time listening to NPR, will admit it slants left.
Now if certain people don’t listen to NPR, you may have to prove bias; or say a liberal confuses self-confirmation and communal reinforcement with non-biased reporting just because he agrees with it, then maybe you’d need to prove bias to that unreasonable person.
I’ve listened to NPR for years (started listening for the music), they’re not as biased as they used to be (I think they got a little skittish), but they’re still biased. They do toss in a token conservative on occasion, and of course they’ve continued their long-standing tradition of usually only presenting the weakest arguments from the opposition.
blammin is 100% correct...Reports have been done, data collected, and anyone with ears and a brain can listen...this isn't even hard stuff to figure out
Not necessarily. Reasonable people shouldn’t have to prove what should be evident to another reasonable person.
This is a ridiculous thing to say. This is because things that are "common knowledge" often turn out to be false. It was common knowledge that night air is bad for you, that demons cause mental illness, that the world is flat. Empiricism isn't just for scientists.
”The fairness doctrine worked for decades”
WTF?!
The libs dominated all forms of news media from the late 60’s until the mid 80’s. Now they merely dominate most mediums.
Ento
Did anyone say anything about “common knowledge”? Didn’t think so.
Let’s try to be a little reasonable. If I observe someone smacking themselves in the foot with a sledgehammer, I can reasonably conclude it’s a painful and dangerous practice, without (gasp) performing a single peer reviewed test. :-0
They can't admit to ANY bias from the media toward the Left...they can not have reasonable debate, let it go...
But watching somebody hit themselves IS a peer-reviewed test. They tested it, you reviewed it. Anyway, just because somebody claims to be a reasonable person does not mean that they are. I'm sure that creationists all think they are reasonable people.
I'll list some programs from PBS and you tell me whether they are conservative or liberal:
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood
Sesame Street
Barney and Friends
Sewing with Nancy
Antiques Roadshow
Austin City Limits
Masterpiece Theatre
Mystery!
Nature
Wild America
Evening at the Pops
Red Dwarf
Mr. Bean
Keeping Up Appearances
Are You Being Served?
One Foot in the Grave
NOVA
This American Life
Wishbone
various documentaries on prime time, mostly historical in nature
I'm not sure if it's the same as it was a few years ago, but every evening there is The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (Gwen Eifel replaced McNeil). Then on Friday nights after The News Hour there used to be Now with Bill Moyars (pretty sure that was cancelled, don't know what replaced it) and Luis Ruckheyser. Frontline might be on after that. The MacLaughlin Group is on Sunday mornings. They might run the BBC World News at around midnight. There aren't actually that many news shows on PBS. There are a bunch of kids shows, some musical/theatrical performances, science shows, historical documentaries, and sitcoms/dramas shipped in from the UK.
PBS was basically all I ever watched growing up. And to be honest, I don't think it's the "liberal bias" that you dislike, because there can't be much of one when 90% of the shows have nothing to do with politics. It's the fact that the programming doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator (like pretty much every other channel) that you dislike.
Ento.
My example was actually an observation, which is only part of a scientific test.
About PBS- (Rowan Atkinson is a comedic genius!)
I thought the original post was on NPR. Oh, you jumped on one comment from PCD about PBS thinking maybe you could distract from NPR?
I'm not sure who your "lowest common denominator" comment was directed at, but whomever it may have been, that's a pretty big assumption on your part, very unscientific.
Reasonable people shouldn’t have to prove what should be evident to another reasonable person.
Where "reasonable" is defined as "in total agreement with Blamin."
This isn't an argument. This is just more ad hominem, personal attacks. If this is all you can bring against my arguments then you've already lost.
Reports have been done, data collected
Well, let's see the data and reports, Game.
About PBS- (Rowan Atkinson is a comedic genius!)
I thought the original post was on NPR
No, I'm pretty sure it was PBS. We were talking about broadcast television networks, as I recall.
Oh, BTW Game - your Sopranos poll?
It's spelled "closure." As in "I wanted closure."
Where "reasonable" is defined as "in total agreement with Blamin."
I never implied any such thing.
This isn't an argument. This is just more ad hominem, personal attacks. If this is all you can bring against my arguments then you've already lost.
Your starting to sound kind of desperate! I stand by my original statement, regardless of your attempt to re-characterize.
Speaking of media bias, I just watched the NBC Nightly News, my wife watched ABC, a friend watched CBS.
All opened with the Supreme Courts decision to strike down the racist busing policies of many school systems. All three were biased.
ONLY ONE briefly mentioned the concerns right thinking people have with this hideous policy.
Sobbing educational bureaucrats, concerned civil rights leaders, shades of "Mississippi Burnin' ", etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Regardless if you disagree or agree with the decision, balanced reporting wouldn't have had such a one sided presentation of viewpoints in the coverage.
Maybe you can 'splain it Chitmeister.
Hashdude,
If the right has had a stranglehold on talk radio, it's because they attract the listeners which give the advertisers a woody and the station owners money. The station owner, who may indeed be a die-hard conservative, is in business and he makes no money if the talkers on his station have no listeners. So the stranglehold, if you insist on such hyperbole, is a natural occurrence and hardly something that needs to be regulated.
And what abuses are you talking about?
Personally, I don't have any problem with slant by any media outlet. If all I ever heard or read was pure liberal vomit, I'd simply read a book. I look at it this way: the outlet believes it's duty is to inform. If the way they inform also informs about the ideology they feel is best for the nation, they're doing their job. If I think what they say is helpful, truthful and truly informative, I'll listen. If not, I'll get my info elsewhere.
Obviously, my belief (and it's really the truth) is that the conservative philosophy works best for the nation. More people benefit who adhere to it's tenants. Thus, I reccommend that everyone listen to conservative outlets for their own sake as well as the country's.
Conversely, thought they would be wrong in believing as such, liberals should listen and support liberal outlets. They'll suffer for doing so, but if they believe they benefit, why shouldn't they?
Should there be only a few who feel one way or the other, those outlets that convey info in the manner reflective of the few will go out of business. At some point, the truth will become apparent and the station with less of it will rightly die out. What need is there for a fairness doctrine? There's not one single conservative talker who'd have a gig if he didn't have people who agree with him and have benefitted from listening. It's as simple as that.
Maybe you can 'splain it Chitmeister.
I can't comment on unknown stories. Do you have transcripts from those programs?
If the right has had a stranglehold on talk radio, it's because they attract the listeners which give the advertisers a woody and the station owners money.
So if theres a right wing bias in radio, it's just the market giving consumers what they want, but if theres a (so called, unproven) liberal bias in other forms of media, it's nefarious liberals trying to brainwash Americans by spreading propaganda?
What a pathetic joke you people are.
other, those outlets that convey info in the manner reflective of the few will go out of business. At some point, the truth will become apparent and the station with less of it will rightly die out. What need is there for a fairness doctrine?
Perhaps you were skipping class when your econ 101 professor explained the distortions that oligopolies create in markets.
Additionally, your so-called "Free Market" also ignores the fact that if there is one political party that has helped multinational media conglomerates become even more profitable at the public's expense, they would have a vested interest and a legal responsibility to help that party stay in power, even if the majority of their listeners/readers/viewers disagreed.
talk radio...mostly conservative and is proud to say it is..
liberal media...not done on purpose, for the most part...it is the fact that most who write and decide which stories go on the air, in the newspaper are liberal. But a debate can not be done on this situation because liberals can not accept the fact that ANYTHING MIGHT be slanted liberal...
Chet,
Mort Kondracke is center/left. He's the balance to Fred Barnes on the Beltway Boys.
McLaughlin Usually has 4 other panel members. With Mort center/left and 2 libs, that makes it a liberal leaning panel.
Gwen Ifill hosts "Washington Week" and all her panel are libs.
Now, Ento, many of those show take their subjects from a Lbieral view with liberal conclusions to all the subjects presented. And Mr. Rodgers himself is a Liberal!!
Realism
Let me explain a very basic concept.
If a news outlet presents only one side of an argument, or presents a token argument from one side while spending approx 7 times as much time on the libweenie side of the argument, then that’s called bias.
Here’s another gem for ya. Just because you agree with a particular view, doesn’t mean it’s not biased.
Chet, Real, Hash, Ento
You people are a hoot! Its very entertaining to watch such self assured parrots spout the line!
Let’s see, your typical debating skills go something like this – Someone make about 4 points against your position, you choose the weakest point, debate it with questionable counter arguments, ignore the 3 points that totally trash your position, and then declare yourself victors, while simultaneously belittling your opposition. Damn!, what master ‘baters you are! (yawn)
Time and time again, I've witnessed arguments about the so-called "ownership" of certain media outlets.
Let me explain what should be a very basic concept.
Media bias is measured by content, not ownership.
Yah, I know that you’ve spent tremendous amounts of time and energy on making an irrelevant point, but don’t despair, there’s always tomorrow to invent another irrelevant argument.
I anxiously await your creativity!!!
I can't comment on unknown stories. Do you have transcripts from those programs?
Maybe you should spend a little more time observing that which you pretend to know so much about.
I’m going to make a “after the fact” prediction (even you’d have to agree that I couldn’t possibly have watched “all” the media).
I’m willing to bet that most of the media presented this story in an extremely biased manner. Further more, I’m willing to bet that the Op-ed shows, such as O’Reilly, actually presented a more even presentation of the opinions on this issue, than the so-called “hard” news shows.
How to prove the assertion? Well unless we’ve all got copies of the programs, we can’t. But we can make a damn good educated guess based on Media Matters silence on this subject and The Media Research Center’s ream’s of examples.
Really, to insist there’s no left leaning bias in the media is a chicken-shit cop-out to the nth degree.
You’d be better served debating the “message” of your costume, than arguing the fact that a costume is worn.
You guys are way to easy!
Mort Kondracke is center/left.
Wow. I want some of that crack. It must be good.
Kondracke has called mainstream liberals "Stalinist" and referred to a CPB ombudsman who works at a conservative think-tank and donates to Republicans a "liberal." He may be liberal for FOX, but we liberals surely don't claim him as one of ours.
That is interesting Jay...Without any study done, I would say Mort defends Dems and makes liberal statements about 70% to 80% of the time...and that doesn't seem to be enough for you...interesting
Mort Kondracke is center/left. He's the balance to Fred Barnes on the Beltway Boys.
Don't be idiotic. Fox News wouldn't even allow a "balanced" show. That's why the supposedly "Right vs. Left" Hannity and Colmes is actually far-right ideologue Hannity and centrist moderate libertarian Colmes.
Morton Kondracke is one of the conservative/libertarians. Do you even watch the show?
With Mort center/left and 2 libs, that makes it a liberal leaning panel.
You need to check your math again. Even if Mort were a liberal, that would be 2 conservative/2 liberal.
Let’s see, your typical debating skills go something like this – Someone make about 4 points against your position, you choose the weakest point, debate it with questionable counter arguments, ignore the 3 points that totally trash your position, and then declare yourself victors
All your points are weak points.
Blamin, we can turn it around on you, too. Here's essentially every argument I've seen you make at this blog: "You're a stoopid liberal!"
Maybe you should spend a little more time observing that which you pretend to know so much about.
I'm sorry that I don't have the time/space manipulation technology that would allow me to watch three different programs in the same timeslot.
Nor am I particularly interested in watching 24 hours of news every single day just to argue with you chuckleheads. It's not like any of you guys are watching the news, anyway.
I’m willing to bet that most of the media presented this story in an extremely biased manner.
And I'm willing to bet that anytime a Democrat was referred to as anything but a "cheese-eating surrender monkey", you'd count that as "liberal bias."
It's a little ridiculous to try to talk bias with you guys when even completely factual reporting - like the verbatim transcription of Ann Coulter's remarks - is held as an example of "liberal bias." If you guys really don't have any clear-cut examples then it's abundantly obvious that the myth of the liberal media is just that.
That is interesting Jay...Without any study done, I would say Mort defends Dems and makes liberal statements about 70% to 80% of the time...
So, you're saying that you just make up whatever you want to believe, Game?
Of course you think Morton is a liberal, Game. He's on the tv, and you're convinced - based on no evidence - that nearly everyone on TV is a liberal.
"So if theres a right wing bias in radio, it's just the market giving consumers what they want, but if theres a (so called, unproven) liberal bias in other forms of media, it's nefarious liberals trying to brainwash Americans by spreading propaganda?"
If I were you, I'd hold up on the unnecessary crack ("what a pathetic joke you people are"), when you've changed the issue to do so. I was referring to "the stranglehold the right has on talk radio", and you've changed it to, "right-wing bias" which is not the same thing. One doesn't need bias to gain a stranglehold on the market. One only needs the favor of the majority of listeners. And as I implied, if not outright stated, that is why there is said stranglehold, if indeed that subjective term truly applies. That there would be right-wing bias from a proudly self-proclaimed right-wing commentator would be a patheticly redundant thing to say.
Chet,
Look in the mirror when you talk about a person being futile to talk with. You take your own cake.
Again, you and Jay are so far left you don't even know what the center is.
Look in the mirror when you talk about a person being futile to talk with. You take your own cake.
Again, you and Jay are so far left you don't even know what the center is.
If there's an argument in there that refutes my points, I don't see it. Ad hominem being the mark of an inferior mind, etc.
Post a Comment