Comments on: Localism is the new Fairness Doctrine http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/ The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:47:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Joe eeser http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-56699 Joe eeser Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:31:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-56699 The notion that anyone, especially "the pubic", "owns" the electro-magnetic spectrum is hogwash. It is nothing but an excuse to control content. The Democrats don't like the content of talk radio and therefore wish to squelch this content. With the Fairness Doctrine in place, coverage of "controverisial subjects" simply recieved no coverage rather than equal coverage. The Democrats are willing to make that trade-off to destroy talk radio. The notion that anyone, especially “the pubic”, “owns” the electro-magnetic spectrum is hogwash. It is nothing but an excuse to control content. The Democrats don't like the content of talk radio and therefore wish to squelch this content. With the Fairness Doctrine in place, coverage of “controverisial subjects” simply recieved no coverage rather than equal coverage. The Democrats are willing to make that trade-off to destroy talk radio.

]]> By: dm http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-45515 dm Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:00:38 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-45515 Monopolizing is a perfectly reasonable word to use, with spectrum allocated the way it is now.<br><br>I'd be happy with lifting restrictions on low-power stations, but until then, those who lease a monopoly on the spectrum can be expected to abide by rules that promote the public good as they use that spectrum. Monopolizing is a perfectly reasonable word to use, with spectrum allocated the way it is now.

I’d be happy with lifting restrictions on low-power stations, but until then, those who lease a monopoly on the spectrum can be expected to abide by rules that promote the public good as they use that spectrum.

]]> By: dm http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-41387 dm Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:00:38 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-41387 Monopolizing is a perfectly reasonable word to use, with spectrum allocated the way it is now. I'd be happy with lifting restrictions on low-power stations, but until then, those who lease a monopoly on the spectrum can be expected to abide by rules that promote the public good as they use that spectrum. Monopolizing is a perfectly reasonable word to use, with spectrum allocated the way it is now.

I’d be happy with lifting restrictions on low-power stations, but until then, those who lease a monopoly on the spectrum can be expected to abide by rules that promote the public good as they use that spectrum.

]]> By: Cord Blomquist http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-45514 Cord Blomquist Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:37:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-45514 Monopolizing is hardly a fair word to use. Yes, I suppose broadcasters monopolize broadcasting, but then newspapers monopolize newspapering, so what? There are many broadcasters on the air and if we wonder why there aren't more we needn't look any futher than the FCC. Restrictions on low power stations and holding on to the notions that licenses shouldn't be bought and sold is what is holding us back from real progress. We don't need more layers of rules, no matter how well intentioned.<br><br>Also, why should every channel provide equal time to both sides? Seems to me it makes more sense to have a the right-wing channel with Rush at the head and to have a left-wing channel with Thom Hartmann as the prime-time show. Why not let another station "serve the public good" by broadcasting sports talk or even oldies music? You know, something people actually want to listen to.<br><br>Rather than trying to engineer fairness out of a myriad of rules why don't we let audiences decide what should be on the radio? Broadcasters should be able to broadcast what they like so long as there is ample competition and people can still reach up and turn the dial.<br><br>Ultimately, however, I think that radio and TV need to disappear from the airwaves. Radio is a massive waste of valuable spectrum that could be used to blanket the country in wireless internet connectivity. Moving TV to digital was a start, but ultimately we could fit a lot more data into the airwaves if we auctioned the spectrum to the highest bidders, which would be internet service providers. Monopolizing is hardly a fair word to use. Yes, I suppose broadcasters monopolize broadcasting, but then newspapers monopolize newspapering, so what? There are many broadcasters on the air and if we wonder why there aren’t more we needn’t look any futher than the FCC. Restrictions on low power stations and holding on to the notions that licenses shouldn’t be bought and sold is what is holding us back from real progress. We don’t need more layers of rules, no matter how well intentioned.

Also, why should every channel provide equal time to both sides? Seems to me it makes more sense to have a the right-wing channel with Rush at the head and to have a left-wing channel with Thom Hartmann as the prime-time show. Why not let another station “serve the public good” by broadcasting sports talk or even oldies music? You know, something people actually want to listen to.

Rather than trying to engineer fairness out of a myriad of rules why don’t we let audiences decide what should be on the radio? Broadcasters should be able to broadcast what they like so long as there is ample competition and people can still reach up and turn the dial.

Ultimately, however, I think that radio and TV need to disappear from the airwaves. Radio is a massive waste of valuable spectrum that could be used to blanket the country in wireless internet connectivity. Moving TV to digital was a start, but ultimately we could fit a lot more data into the airwaves if we auctioned the spectrum to the highest bidders, which would be internet service providers.

]]> By: Cord Blomquist http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-41314 Cord Blomquist Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:37:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-41314 Monopolizing is hardly a fair word to use. Yes, I suppose broadcasters monopolize broadcasting, but then newspapers monopolize newspapering, so what? There are many broadcasters on the air and if we wonder why there aren't more we needn't look any futher than the FCC. Restrictions on low power stations and holding on to the notions that licenses shouldn't be bought and sold is what is holding us back from real progress. We don't need more layers of rules, no matter how well intentioned. Also, why should every channel provide equal time to both sides? Seems to me it makes more sense to have a the right-wing channel with Rush at the head and to have a left-wing channel with Thom Hartmann as the prime-time show. Why not let another station "serve the public good" by broadcasting sports talk or even oldies music? You know, something people actually want to listen to. Rather than trying to engineer fairness out of a myriad of rules why don't we let audiences decide what should be on the radio? Broadcasters should be able to broadcast what they like so long as there is ample competition and people can still reach up and turn the dial. Ultimately, however, I think that radio and TV need to disappear from the airwaves. Radio is a massive waste of valuable spectrum that could be used to blanket the country in wireless internet connectivity. Moving TV to digital was a start, but ultimately we could fit a lot more data into the airwaves if we auctioned the spectrum to the highest bidders, which would be internet service providers. Monopolizing is hardly a fair word to use. Yes, I suppose broadcasters monopolize broadcasting, but then newspapers monopolize newspapering, so what? There are many broadcasters on the air and if we wonder why there aren’t more we needn’t look any futher than the FCC. Restrictions on low power stations and holding on to the notions that licenses shouldn’t be bought and sold is what is holding us back from real progress. We don’t need more layers of rules, no matter how well intentioned.

Also, why should every channel provide equal time to both sides? Seems to me it makes more sense to have a the right-wing channel with Rush at the head and to have a left-wing channel with Thom Hartmann as the prime-time show. Why not let another station “serve the public good” by broadcasting sports talk or even oldies music? You know, something people actually want to listen to.

Rather than trying to engineer fairness out of a myriad of rules why don’t we let audiences decide what should be on the radio? Broadcasters should be able to broadcast what they like so long as there is ample competition and people can still reach up and turn the dial.

Ultimately, however, I think that radio and TV need to disappear from the airwaves. Radio is a massive waste of valuable spectrum that could be used to blanket the country in wireless internet connectivity. Moving TV to digital was a start, but ultimately we could fit a lot more data into the airwaves if we auctioned the spectrum to the highest bidders, which would be internet service providers.

]]> By: dm http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-45513 dm Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:26:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-45513 Bringing up newspapers is a red herring, they aren't monopolizing the public airwaves. We're talking about broadcasters, who rent a public resource, and we're talking about terms of their lease.<br><br>Certainly broadcasters exercise editorial discretion, but they also have a responsibility (unrecognized and unfulfilled today) to give "equal time" for differing views on the public property that they lease. They're human. Their audience is human. It's not a perfect system, and occasionally you might even end up in court or in front of the FCC, but it was much better than the absence of accountability on the airwaves today.<br><br>You can't even get equity by means of <i>paid advertisement</i> today. "We don't air commercials on (that side of) a political controversy".<br><br>Mentioning that the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made Rush Limbaugh possible is possibly true, but not in the sense Cord Blomquist means. Paul Harvey aired his political commentaries to a huge audience before, during, and after the existence of the Fairness Doctrine. What the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made possible was Limbaugh's (or Franken's) ability to lie to their audience with impunity (should they want to). At least in the Fairness Doctrine days, Harvey knew that if he stretched the truth too far, someone would appear in his time-slot offering a correction. Bringing up newspapers is a red herring, they aren’t monopolizing the public airwaves. We’re talking about broadcasters, who rent a public resource, and we’re talking about terms of their lease.

Certainly broadcasters exercise editorial discretion, but they also have a responsibility (unrecognized and unfulfilled today) to give “equal time” for differing views on the public property that they lease. They’re human. Their audience is human. It’s not a perfect system, and occasionally you might even end up in court or in front of the FCC, but it was much better than the absence of accountability on the airwaves today.

You can’t even get equity by means of paid advertisement today. “We don’t air commercials on (that side of) a political controversy”.

Mentioning that the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made Rush Limbaugh possible is possibly true, but not in the sense Cord Blomquist means. Paul Harvey aired his political commentaries to a huge audience before, during, and after the existence of the Fairness Doctrine. What the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made possible was Limbaugh’s (or Franken’s) ability to lie to their audience with impunity (should they want to). At least in the Fairness Doctrine days, Harvey knew that if he stretched the truth too far, someone would appear in his time-slot offering a correction.

]]> By: dm http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-41301 dm Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:26:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-41301 Bringing up newspapers is a red herring, they aren't monopolizing the public airwaves. We're talking about broadcasters, who rent a public resource, and we're talking about terms of their lease. Certainly broadcasters exercise editorial discretion, but they also have a responsibility (unrecognized and unfulfilled today) to give "equal time" for differing views on the public property that they lease. They're human. Their audience is human. It's not a perfect system, and occasionally you might even end up in court or in front of the FCC, but it was much better than the absence of accountability on the airwaves today. You can't even get equity by means of <i>paid advertisement</i> today. "We don't air commercials on (that side of) a political controversy". Mentioning that the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made Rush Limbaugh possible is possibly true, but not in the sense Cord Blomquist means. Paul Harvey aired his political commentaries to a huge audience before, during, and after the existence of the Fairness Doctrine. What the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made possible was Limbaugh's (or Franken's) ability to lie to their audience with impunity (should they want to). At least in the Fairness Doctrine days, Harvey knew that if he stretched the truth too far, someone would appear in his time-slot offering a correction. Bringing up newspapers is a red herring, they aren’t monopolizing the public airwaves. We’re talking about broadcasters, who rent a public resource, and we’re talking about terms of their lease.

Certainly broadcasters exercise editorial discretion, but they also have a responsibility (unrecognized and unfulfilled today) to give “equal time” for differing views on the public property that they lease. They’re human. Their audience is human. It’s not a perfect system, and occasionally you might even end up in court or in front of the FCC, but it was much better than the absence of accountability on the airwaves today.

You can’t even get equity by means of paid advertisement today. “We don’t air commercials on (that side of) a political controversy”.

Mentioning that the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made Rush Limbaugh possible is possibly true, but not in the sense Cord Blomquist means. Paul Harvey aired his political commentaries to a huge audience before, during, and after the existence of the Fairness Doctrine. What the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine made possible was Limbaugh’s (or Franken’s) ability to lie to their audience with impunity (should they want to). At least in the Fairness Doctrine days, Harvey knew that if he stretched the truth too far, someone would appear in his time-slot offering a correction.

]]> By: Ryan Radia http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-45512 Ryan Radia Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:49:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-45512 Who's to select the sides of a debate that ought to deserve a chance to speak? Few arguments have but two positions, and airing only the agenda of Democrats and Republicans but not other political groups is far worse than a broadcaster exercising editorial discretion. We should not expect every media outlet to offer a completely neutral stance on every issue. Newspapers frequently publish opinion essays with a blatant political agenda, and letters to the editor are often selected based on audience appeal rather than for the purpose of promoting fairness of viewpoints. Who’s to select the sides of a debate that ought to deserve a chance to speak? Few arguments have but two positions, and airing only the agenda of Democrats and Republicans but not other political groups is far worse than a broadcaster exercising editorial discretion. We should not expect every media outlet to offer a completely neutral stance on every issue. Newspapers frequently publish opinion essays with a blatant political agenda, and letters to the editor are often selected based on audience appeal rather than for the purpose of promoting fairness of viewpoints.

]]> By: Ryan Radia http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-41295 Ryan Radia Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:49:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-41295 Who's to select the sides of a debate that ought to deserve a chance to speak? Few arguments have but two positions, and airing only the agenda of Democrats and Republicans but not other political groups is far worse than a broadcaster exercising editorial discretion. We should not expect every media outlet to offer a completely neutral stance on every issue. Newspapers frequently publish opinion essays with a blatant political agenda, and letters to the editor are often selected based on audience appeal rather than for the purpose of promoting fairness of viewpoints. Who’s to select the sides of a debate that ought to deserve a chance to speak? Few arguments have but two positions, and airing only the agenda of Democrats and Republicans but not other political groups is far worse than a broadcaster exercising editorial discretion. We should not expect every media outlet to offer a completely neutral stance on every issue. Newspapers frequently publish opinion essays with a blatant political agenda, and letters to the editor are often selected based on audience appeal rather than for the purpose of promoting fairness of viewpoints.

]]> By: dm http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-45511 dm Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:51:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-45511 I think you're basically wrong about the Fairness Doctrine. All the Fairness Doctrine did was ensure that broadcasters give equal time to opposing points of view. As the broadcasters are borrowing their broadcast medium from the public, this is a pretty reasonable requirement. Far from stifling free speech, it encouraged it. Rush Limbaugh could continue to borrow his megaphone from the commonweal, but then he'd have to hand it over to someone who disagreed with him for a while. <br><br>The effect, at least on my local stations, was of a "letters to the editor" column in broadcast form, though a bit more polished.<br><br>This localism proposal sounds like it would have been a good thing twenty years ago, when mass media were more monopolized. I think the internet changes that. I think you’re basically wrong about the Fairness Doctrine. All the Fairness Doctrine did was ensure that broadcasters give equal time to opposing points of view. As the broadcasters are borrowing their broadcast medium from the public, this is a pretty reasonable requirement. Far from stifling free speech, it encouraged it. Rush Limbaugh could continue to borrow his megaphone from the commonweal, but then he’d have to hand it over to someone who disagreed with him for a while.

The effect, at least on my local stations, was of a “letters to the editor” column in broadcast form, though a bit more polished.

This localism proposal sounds like it would have been a good thing twenty years ago, when mass media were more monopolized. I think the internet changes that.

]]> By: dm http://techliberation.com/2008/04/23/localism-is-the-new-fairness-doctrine/#comment-41291 dm Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:51:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=10701#comment-41291 I think you're basically wrong about the Fairness Doctrine. All the Fairness Doctrine did was ensure that broadcasters give equal time to opposing points of view. As the broadcasters are borrowing their broadcast medium from the public, this is a pretty reasonable requirement. Far from stifling free speech, it encouraged it. Rush Limbaugh could continue to borrow his megaphone from the commonweal, but then he'd have to hand it over to someone who disagreed with him for a while. The effect, at least on my local stations, was of a "letters to the editor" column in broadcast form, though a bit more polished. This localism proposal sounds like it would have been a good thing twenty years ago, when mass media were more monopolized. I think the internet changes that. I think you’re basically wrong about the Fairness Doctrine. All the Fairness Doctrine did was ensure that broadcasters give equal time to opposing points of view. As the broadcasters are borrowing their broadcast medium from the public, this is a pretty reasonable requirement. Far from stifling free speech, it encouraged it. Rush Limbaugh could continue to borrow his megaphone from the commonweal, but then he’d have to hand it over to someone who disagreed with him for a while.

The effect, at least on my local stations, was of a “letters to the editor” column in broadcast form, though a bit more polished.

This localism proposal sounds like it would have been a good thing twenty years ago, when mass media were more monopolized. I think the internet changes that.

]]>