Should the next Dem president dismantle the RW media machine?

The reason would be that the RW's message is a threat to national security. It's my understanding that Chavez has done something of that nature, and while I do view his actions skeptically, the prospect of silencing all the bigots on Fox News and the RW radio stations is tempting. :tv:

...In Rush Limbaugh's mind.

WHY people think it's impossible to bring BACK something we HAD for DECADES is beyond me...

this place scares me sometimes.

What's the difference between leftist ot rightist censorship? There isn't any. Vote with your remote or radio dial. I'll make my own choices as to where best to get my news and opinion.

that so many have no fucking regard whatsoever for the 1st amendment.

We need a new FCC with teeth, and a verifiable, agreed upon code of ethics in broadcasting. We need to clamp down on large media corporations who are engaging in laissez-faire infotainment.

then you've covered the NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news.

The FCC would have no impact on cable news, newspapers, magazines, or the internet.

And the idea that it's possible to enforce some completely neutral stand is ludicrous.

"ludicrous" :rofl:

About the FCC:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

FCC Media Bureau:
The Media Bureau develops, recommends and administers the policy and licensing programs relating to electronic media, including cable television, broadcast television, and radio in the United States and its territories. The Media Bureau also handles post-licensing matters regarding Direct Broadcast Satellite service.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA):
In response to concerns that emerging technologies such as digital and wireless communications were making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies to execute authorized surveillance, Congress enacted CALEA on October 25, 1994. CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities. Common carriers, facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service – all three types of entities are defined to be “telecommunications carriers” for purposes of CALEA section 102, 47 U.S.C. § 1001 – must comply with the CALEA obligations set forth in CALEA section 103, 47 U.S.C. § 1002. See CALEA First Report and Order (rel. Sept. 23, 2005).
http://www.fcc.gov/calea/

require more than bumpersticker solutions.

"Bring back the Fairness Doctrine" will not have one-tenth the impact some here seem to believe.

Despite your post, the FCC has no jurisdiction over the CONTENT of cable news. Nor should it.

Touché! :D

About the fairness Doctrine would have no impact at all on cable television, newspapers, magazines or the internet?

Or that it wouldn't, say, require a network to give Dennis Kucinich equal coverage every time they mention Hillary Clinton?

Just shouting "Bring back the Fairness Doctrine" isn't going to address any serious problems, and would, in fact, create more.

You want a way to legally silence Rush? Well be prepared for Mike Malloy, Amy Goodman, et. al. to be silenced the same way.

The answer to speech you don't like is to create more free speech - not to have the government shut it down.

1) I never said I wanted to "silence" anyone.
2) I never said the Fairness Doctrine would or would not have an impact. In fact, I did not even mention it by name because I do not support it (as it was before Reagan vetoed it).
3) The FCC was AGAINST the Fairness Doctrine. My post above regarded the current state of the FCC.
4) Why are you equating Amy Goodman and Rush Limbaugh? Can you cite examples of her making libelous, threatening broadcasts?
5) Where did I say I wanted to shut down free speech? Why would I, or you, support a governmental apparatus that would silence me and you?
6) Do we really disagree or are we just enjoying an argument? :D

on many things.

I mentioned the Fairness Doctrine because I don't know what other mechanism the FCC would have to regulate the content of television broadcasts in the way many here seem to want.

You don't get to decide that Limbaugh's partisan rhetoric is "threatening" while Malloy's is perfectly acceptable. And I don't want the government to have the power to decide that, either.

:D That is a really callow debate tactic. :rofl:

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I was expressing MY opinions.

If you see me say "SwampRat said "insert text here between quotation marks" " then you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

But instead, I was giving MY opinions, and arguing not only with you, but with a lot of people here who seem not to understand what the Fairness Doctrine could or couldn't do.

Just because you did not use quotes does not erase what you attempted to do. I've seen this type of antagonistic behavior in the past - it belies poor debating skills. This is very tedious and boring, which is why I hardly ever respond to you or even read your posts anymore.

You do not have the slightest idea what I know about the "Fairness Doctrine" because I did not discuss it with you, and after the way you addressed me in this thread, I have no desire to discuss this or any other topic with you in the future. :hi:

abc, cbs, nbc, fox and cnn?

those are the news outlets watched by the huge majority of americans. they are all on basic cable, which is what MOST americans have access to. they are all, except cnn, considered public airwaves channels.

most of the rest of the "cable" channels are on a second tier. which most americans also have. very few have JUST basic cable.

and they ALL spew rightwing bullshit.

and hello! get a clue!!! americans don't read. they only comprehend things in 15 to 30 second commercial slogans, repeated until they are absorbed by osmosis.

and if they DO read, where are these bastions of fairness?

here in the liberal bastion of nyc, we have:
the new york post, rupert murdoch's gutter trash tabloid
the daily news, only barely above the post's level, (i suppose that is gutter versus street trash),
the new york sun, a tabloid trying to out rightwing the post.

they ARE tabloids, only one step above supermarket fare.

then there is the new york times and the wall street journal. talk about corporate mouthpieces....

they are the epitomes of fairness.... :sarcasm:

and don't forget the (free) village voice, a TRUE bastion of liberal news and information, except they were recently bought by rightwingers (thanks to UAFP), and many of their established columnists quit in protest.

so i now view the voice as nyc's latest rightwing rag.

so, let's see, rightwing tabloids = 4
corporate mouthpieces = 2
true/fair news outlets = 0

there are also two free dailys, sort of mini-papers, still tabloid, AM and METRO. they, essentially, reprint local/national stories from the news wires (and we all know how fair and balanced THEY are...).

since we don't need to require the fcc to do their jobs, because that would be "censorship", please list the huge number of fair news outlets, the ones that all the american are listening to and reading.

i'm waiting....

the money crowd has complete control of everything that is released as "news". and we can't do a damn thing about it, because for some reason democrats with money are incapable of doing what all the republicans with money have done. strange, but true, apparently. some sort of universal alternative financial physics (UAFP) involved, which prevents democrats from owning networks. it's just not possible.

so that leaves legislation.

it's freedom of speech", all right, as long as you have the money to own the networks that GIVE the news that suits you.

so that is what we need to do. legislate it.

unless you mean local fox affiliates over the airwaves.


I didn't argue that all the outlets you mention are fair. I argued that the government has no business, and no legal right, to control what they present.

You can't "legislate" that which is blatantly unconstitutional. What kind of law do you imagine? "CNN must be more liberal!"?


Should Air America be forced to carry Rush Limbaugh, in the interests of "fairness"?

Sorry, I'm something of a First Amendment Absolutist. Chavez lost me with some of the anti-Democratic moves he's made, recently.

What we need are MORE voices, not fewer. Part of the problem now is that a small number of mega-corporations own ALL the media outlets. I think reinstating the fairness doctrine and some of the old ownership/monopoly rules might be a start. But the bottom line is, we need more choices and better choices. Thank God for the internet.

They have changed a LOT in the last 20 years.

Corporate conglomeration is inherently corrupt, imho.

:hi:

owning all the newspapers.

The fallacy of option #3 -- "Only allow completely balanced views to be expressed" -- is that you have "news" outlets already assuming that every issue must be presented with "both sides" even when, as news, an issue simply may not have "sides" at all! But for infotainment purposes, you can't beat pretending that everything has "sides" because then you can show yourself to be "fair and balanced" while at the same time manufacturing dramatic tension that is so crucial to ratings.

.. who decieds what is balanced?

The media will change when the consumers of media demand it, and not one day sooner.

... is a subject of confusion. We're in even deeper shit when the regulating agencies claim they can't tell either.

I know it's borderline authoritarian, but our society needs to head in a new direction. As long as the information is factual, of course.

You need to rethink some of your totalitarian desires, pal. Or simply never, EVER call a repub a fascist again. This thread is sick, and should not be taken seriously.

I cant even stand to watch the news anymore because they cant simply report it. They have to tell us what to think, and I don't like that one fucking bit.

please tell me who decides what is balanced.

:shrug:

Congress shall make no law...

When you have 10% of the nation's radio stations owned by one company, you have a problem. When you have one company dominating an entire market, that is not free by any means.

For clarification see the 1st Amendment

and that covers media, banking, insurance, health care (in some areas), energy companies and a few other industries.

In sick of Mc News. Making the whole thing more diverse and competitive would make more sense than just chilling free speech. Other near monopolies present other problems. They all need to go.

..by the Right Wing Loudmouths for so long, it can hear the other side for a few years.

...and I know damn well that my "fantasy" won't come true...as maybe it shouldn't... :)

They lie and distort. And they sure as hell aren't needed.

If post breakup, the newly independent Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN continue to either be either right-wing mouthpieces or infotainment focused wastes of bandwith, then that's not the government's business.

That should do the trick. Oh and break up media trusts and return us to past ownership rules. Now good luck doing either.