July 11, 2007
At FoxNews.com, Radley Balko looks at how politicians use their power to bully critics.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Radley is correct - the public airwaves should only be used to
promote a single viewpoint.
Ideally, one corporation would own the rights to all the airwaves
and rid us of annoying "dissent".
You know, we really do need surveillance cameras installed to
protect societies.
First place would be the private offices of all legislators.
The cameras could be connected to the intertubes and piped directly
to youtube so that viewers at home could rate them and post
comments.
This is all thinly-disguised posturing for what's really
bothering the senators: They don't like that people are allowed to
criticize them on public airwaves.
Oh, I don't know. Have you considered that they also want to
sacrifice puppies to the Lord Chthulhu?
Next up, opponents of Social Security are really bothered by the
fact that people who don't earn a great deal of money don't starve
to death upon retirement.
Senator Jones: "You know, it really bothers me that there is a
guy on the radio criticizing me. I didn't sign up for this when I
decided to run."
Senator Smith: "I'm with you. Let's pass a law that only allows
media outlets to criticize us half the time."
Senator Jones: "Great idea. Be sure to disguise your efforts,
thinly."
Red Lion probably wouldn't stand today. However, given the example of FCC's ability & will to stall against article 3 court litigation of indecency fines, it could be many years before we'd get broadcasters willing to take the risk against, and courts willing to take the case of, a reinstalled Fairness Doctrine.
When winter comes, the shivering Grasshopper calls a press
conference and demands to know why the Ant should be allowed to be
warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC and ABC show up and provide pictures of the shivering
Grasshopper next to a film of the Ant in his comfortable home with
a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that, in a
country of such wealth, this poor Grasshopper is allowed to suffer
so?
Nancy Pelosi makes a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening
News and tell a concerned Katie Couric that they will do everything
they can for the Grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he
deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the "Era of Greed."
Michal Moore exclaims in an interview with Wolf Blitzer that the
Ant has gotten rich off the "back of the Grasshopper," and calls
for an immediate tax hike on the Ant to make him pay his "fair
share."
I've often tried to figure out who someone fiscally liberal, socially conservative would be. The Catholic Church?
joe and Dan T are all hot an bothered that G. W. Bush doesn't
have the power to tell radio stations what they need to say to be
"fair". They are very worried about that liberal bias in the media,
a liberal bias that can only be corrected when the FCC (part of the
executive branch) can tell radio and TV stations exactly what they
need to do to be more "balanced"... and if they aren't "balanced"
in the way that our Great Leader determines, they can be fined,
lose their licence, or be thrown in jail.
Look at how fair and balanced Fox News is. Joe and Dan T., as
concerned Americans, only want ALL media to be as fair and balanced
and unbiased as Fox News.
Senator Smith: "I'm with you. Let's pass a law that only allows media outlets to criticize us half the time."
Your bias shows through even in your parody. I bet you like BOTH
kinds of music too! Country and Western! And the FCC will make the
media "fair" and "balanced" by requiring that BOTH sides to speak,
the Democrats *AND* Republicans!!
bill,
Robert Byrd? The old, pro-life Dennis Kucinich?
Rex,
I haven't actually offered an opinion on the Fairness Doctrine,
because I don't really have one. If you can learn the difference
between criticizing an argument and making a counter-argument, you
would be more fun to debate.
I haven't actually offered an opinion on the Fairness Doctrine, because I don't really have one. If you can learn the difference between criticizing an argument and making a counter-argument, you would be more fun to debate.
joe, when someone tried to make a point that the Fairness Doctrine
is a backdoor attempt at censorship, you said this:
Oh, I don't know. Have you considered that they also want to sacrifice puppies to the Lord Chthulhu?
Either you are making fun of their skeptism about the Fairness
Doctrine because you think their skeptism is unwarranted, which is
a defense of the Fairness Doctrine... or you are making fun of
their skeptism about the Fairness Doctrine just to be a dick. I
gave you the benifit of the doubt, and assume it was the
first.
My humor even had something to do with the topic at hand... unlike
your Chthulhu comment.
Well, I guess ultimately it's no surprise that the group being treated unfairly is more interested in fairness that the group benefiting from the unfairness.
Rex Rhino,
I am making fun of his criticism of the fairness doctrine because
that particular criticism consisted of attributing silly-assed,
mustache-twirling motives to his critics.
That's a lame stunt, no matter what position you attempt to use it
to further.
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to go veil my attempt to pull the
wings off butteflied. Thinly.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245