Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Nov '10 00:14
    Sen. Rockefeller’s shared some thoughts that were not in his prepared remarks today. The West Virginia Democrat gave a mini-lecture on communications and journalism during a Senate hearing on retransmission consent:

    Mr. Rockefeller spoke broadly about the ways he believes television is ailing, and in doing so he singled out the “endless barking” of cable news.

    He said: “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the F.C.C. to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.”

    Theres your progressives at work people. CENSORSHIP!!!!
  2. 19 Nov '10 00:23
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Sen. Rockefeller’s shared some thoughts that were not in his prepared remarks today. The West Virginia Democrat gave a mini-lecture on communications and journalism during a Senate hearing on retransmission consent:

    Mr. Rockefeller spoke broadly about the ways he believes television is ailing, and in doing so he singled out the “endless barking” of ...[text shortened]... tantly, in their future.”[/i]

    [b] Theres your progressives at work people. CENSORSHIP!!!!
    [/b]
    Yawn. Let us know when he actually comes close to seriously proposing any such thing.
  3. 19 Nov '10 11:26
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Theres your progressives at work people. CENSORSHIP!!!!
    Just reinstate the fairness doctrine! Then every news outlet can express conservative opinions to their heart's content - as long as they allow people to hear the alternatives too.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Nov '10 13:54
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Just reinstate the fairness doctrine! Then every news outlet can express conservative opinions to their heart's content - as long as they allow people to hear the alternatives too.
    I'm of the 3/4 serious opinion that the fairness doctrine is grounds for armed revolution.

    As for Jay Rockefeller, it doesn't appear that he intends to act on the little bug inside of him; so who cares what the little bug says? He seemed to be expressing a little frustration, not seriously suggesting it. Also, he picked on both sides equally in that quote.
  5. 19 Nov '10 14:56
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm of the 3/4 serious opinion that the fairness doctrine is grounds for armed revolution.
    I am of the 3/4 serious opinion that the absence of a fairness doctrine makes armed revolution considerably more likely!
  6. 19 Nov '10 15:03
    no...he picked 100% on the ruling class side. I'm disgusted that these people assume they are so much smarter than average people.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Nov '10 16:38
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    I am of the 3/4 serious opinion that the absence of a fairness doctrine makes armed revolution considerably more likely!
    Can't the same be said for freedom of speech in general? Should we ban free speech all together on the possibility that free speech leads to revolution?
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Nov '10 16:44
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Sen. Rockefeller’s shared some thoughts that were not in his prepared remarks today. The West Virginia Democrat gave a mini-lecture on communications and journalism during a Senate hearing on retransmission consent:

    Mr. Rockefeller spoke broadly about the ways he believes television is ailing, and in doing so he singled out the “endless barking” of ...[text shortened]... tantly, in their future.”[/i]

    [b] Theres your progressives at work people. CENSORSHIP!!!!
    [/b]
    Get a grip.
  9. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Nov '10 16:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm of the 3/4 serious opinion that the fairness doctrine is grounds for armed revolution.
    Why is that?
  10. 19 Nov '10 16:47
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Just reinstate the fairness doctrine! Then every news outlet can express conservative opinions to their heart's content - as long as they allow people to hear the alternatives too.
    There's this myth that every issue has only two sides. But most issues have many more than that. A legitimate fairness doctrine would require that each of these sides got equal coverage - but then there wouldn't be enough hours in the day for any news outlet to achieve this.

    Or else the news outlets could declare that they're merely offering "entertainment" and use that to get an exemption.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Nov '10 16:52
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Why is that?
    Because it's a barely concealed attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Really. Do you want a government bureaucrat watching the Rachel Maddow show and deciding whether the political content of the show is acceptable??
  12. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Nov '10 16:55 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Because it's a barely concealed attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Really. Do you want a government bureaucrat watching the Rachel Maddow show and deciding whether the political content of the show is acceptable??
    I wouldn't mind a sort of Ombudsman which could act based on complaints.

    And I think there's a huge difference between not allowing someone to say something and forcing mainstream political media to lower the amount of blatant bias or allocate a fraction of air time for political adversaries. Everyone still can say what they want to say, but at a airtime price.
  13. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    19 Nov '10 16:59
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I wouldn't mind a sort of Ombudsman which could act based on complaints.

    And I think there's a huge difference between not allowing someone to say something and forcing mainstream political media to lower the amount of blatant bias or allocate a fraction of air time for political adversaries. Everyone still can say what they want to say, but at a airtime price.
    We should have "truth panels" where a group of supersmarts would decide if the broadcaster is telling the truth. If they aren't being truthful then they get shutdown and sent to a re-education camp.
  14. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Nov '10 17:01
    Originally posted by uzless
    We should have "truth panels" where a group of supersmarts would decide if the broadcaster is telling the truth. If they aren't being truthful then they get shutdown and sent to a re-education camp.
    Like libel lawsuits?
  15. 19 Nov '10 17:05 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Because it's a barely concealed attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Really. Do you want a government bureaucrat watching the Rachel Maddow show and deciding whether the political content of the show is acceptable??
    It's not an attack on freedom of speech, because no perspective is prevented from being aired. A broadcasting corporation is not a person but a company consisting of numerous people, and it can thus legitimately be obliged to air a variety of perspectives without this impinging on the freedom of speech of any single person employed as a broadcaster.

    Actually, the main problem with it is practical - as Melanerpes suggests. Someone has to decide which views are worthy of representation; which might mean that, say, mainstream Republican and Democratic positions are given air time, but not, say, socialist ones; or that global warming deniers are given equal time with mainstream scientists when the scientific consensus is tilted fairly overwhelmingly in one direction. And in many issues, there may well be hundreds of possible opinions, and it won't be possible to give them all space and time.