30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging 720
Cutie Pi writes "In a recent Rasmussen poll looking at the public's attitudes toward a possible revival of the fairness doctrine by the Democrats, a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates (originally intended for public airwaves) to cover the Internet as well. It is encouraging that a minority of people feel that way, but Democrats say 'hands-off the Internet ... by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.'"
republicans favoring less government involvement? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservative politicians want a smaller government. The previous Republican majority was not conservative.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Republicans haven't been for smaller government since the 80s. Bush didn't start the current wave of neoconservatism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly was small about massive defense spending, and trying to legislate morality?
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, the part about massive defense spending is part of my point. But that's actually a Democratic thing. Remember, LBJ (who kept us in Vietnam) was a Democrat. Republicans have been anti-defense spending until recent decades.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Informative)
At the start of Vietnam both parties had hawk and dove factions. Nixon was originally elected on his claim to have a secret plan to end the war!
During the LBJ administration the Hawk faction in the Democrats lost influence and they were routed almost entirely during Nixon. But there is an additional layer of complexity there as Nixon's big idea was detente with Russia and re-opening relations with China.
The big change came during the Carter administration with the invasion of Afghanistan. Both parties turned considerably more hawkish. Carter began the weapons build-up but as a tactical reaction to the Soviets. For Reagan the increase in military spending was strategic and ideological.
During the Bush administration the foreign policy has been directed by the neo-imperialist wing of the Republican party. They like wars, the more the better. Their war in Iraq has been a fiasco, which is why they want a new one in Iran, or Georgia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812. I seriously doubt that it'd work out, and right now we can't do it anyway. But at least it would be the right thing to do.
Then again, I also don't care of those "break away" provinces break away -- let them for all I care. I also support Chechnya, the Basques and a slew of other things. Freedom good, Empire dickish.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812.
I don't know about Georgia being a legitimate war for the US, unless you mean someone invades Atlanta and we defend it.
Unless some massive political manipulation went on behind the scenes, it seems like the Georgians attacked their "breakaway region" of South Ossetia, because Ossetia is pro-Moscow. They killed a fair number of people, though according to South Ossetian doctors interviewed today on NPR, the Russian claim of thousands of dead South Ossetian civilians isn't true at all, the reality being hund
Clinton Defense Castration (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be noted that President Clinton cut the military - manpower, order of battle, the whole show - some 40%.
Not quite in half, but close enough.
The results have been on display in Georgia for about a week.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a lie.
I was serving in the Army from 1980 to 1989 (got married and wanted to settle down then), and the reality is that what got cut were mostly bogus military programs for Star Wars (which I worked on LRCSW), ships and planes we didn't need and couldn't use, and lots of expensive and very impractical mil hardware.
Instead of $10,000 laptops with removeable drives built to mil specs, we got $2000 laptops with removeable drives off the shelf under Clinton.
Instead of $250,000 fax machines with security
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First off conservatism isn't defined by GW Bush. He's no exemplar of conservative thought or policy and has been consistently criticized from the right. Most people aren't terribly consistent in their political ideology, ESPECIALLY politicians since they must appeal to a broad coalition of support and most people have only the fuzziest political ideals. He no more defines conservatism than Clinton defined liberalism. You could make a decent case tha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Morality is just the frozen ethics of a long-dead half-savage civilization. Ethics is alive.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
republicans favoring less government involvement (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans haven't been for smaller government since the 80s.
Republicans haven't wanted smaller government since at least Nixon. Heck even Republican President Eisenhower, who talked about the Military-industrial Complex [wikipedia.org], made government bigger. Before him, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt expanded government.
Falcon
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
Go by the term Classical Liberal then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [wikipedia.org]
Those want a limited government (which itself is a more correct term, a smaller government is the natural effect byproduct of a limited government but a smaller government isn't always more limited - i.e. outsourcing everything)
"Conservative" means nothing anymore, it's been so diluted. The biggest "conservatives" are nothing more but against taxes (passing staggering debt onto future generations while still paying for massive entitlements/porkbarrel is not more conservative than tax and spend), embrace war against drugs/crime/poverty/nations (war is the health of the state, thus anti-conservative) and lastly, wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
Plus the term liberal drives many of the unreasonable ones on edge. People like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh types that want to pidgeonhole everyone in their arguments.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
"Conservative" means nothing anymore ... . ... "conservatives" are nothing more but against taxes ... embrace war against drugs/crime/poverty/nations ... and lastly, wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
Not to (borrowing your term) pidgeonhole anyone or anything...
wear their religion on their sleeve yet none of it in their hearts except when convenient.
You know, that's how I feel whenever I see people with bumper stickers slathered all over their cars (who are, imho, 99% of the time liberal). Why is it so important that other people know that you're a vegan, are pro-abortion, etc, or, my personal favorite, are mad that the US was "One pretzel away from getting rid of Bush." ~shrug~
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
(who are, imho, 99% of the time liberal)
Back it up. If you give statistics, I want references. If you wish to avoid scrutiny, use the weak vague language made for such bullshitting occasions.
"..you're a vegan, are pro-abortion, etc.."
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who are "pro-abortion." Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter is a far cry from jumping for joy each time a poor girl in a terrible situation walks into a clinic.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
You know have noticed the internet acronym "IMHO" in my post. Not exactly a common internet acronym i guess, though you see it fairly often on slashdot etc. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imho [wiktionary.org] (in short, in my humble opinion). Emphasis on the opinion. I'd be fascinated by any statistics, but I don't have any. I'll google around a little bit, but it's hard to track this kind of thing.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine works for the Democratic Party in NC, and a number of years ago they briefly stopped selling bumper stickers, only to face a lot of popular discontent from people who were big fans of the bumper stickers (and reversed their decision). ~shrug~
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who are "pro-abortion." Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter is a far cry from jumping for joy each time a poor girl in a terrible situation walks into a clinic.
That's true to a degree, but ultimately, whether you consider yourself "pro-choice," "pro-life," whatever, you're arguing over one action--aborting a fetus. And those on one side want that to be legal, and the other want it to be illegal. The rest is just semantics.
"Not wanting the government to be in charge of such a personal matter" seems to me a bit disingenuous. I don't see many (and I'll bow to your preferences and use the term "pro-choice") pro-choice people arguing against the government's vital role in funding Planned Parenthood for instance. If you're really taking a libertarian view, one should probably argue against planned parenthood's dependent relationship. Not trying to put words in your mouth here, maybe you're consistent in your position, but most people I've met haven't made that argument.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
like legal abortion, Planned Parenthood is about increasing one's ability to make informed choices about reproduction.
Yes, that is certainly part of Planned Parenthood's mission. Let's not forget that it's also an organization that was originally called the Birthcontrol League and that PP performs the majority of all abortions in the US. Ergo, when the Government funds PP, it funds a lot of abortions. I am very torn about abortion, and have argued both sides in the past, and don't particularly feel like taking a position now (lame, I know..) ... however, I think you illustrate very well the typical pro-abortion (or pro-choice if you prefer..) viewpoint that I mentioned to the GP. If you really think the Government should not legislate morality and should butt out, then that includes butting out for the things you like as well as the things you don't. Frequent problem with both the left and the right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On a slight side note, you don't think personal freedom is a type of morality? I do! I think you would find many people and governments around the world that would argue that individual freedom above all else is IMMORAL. What about the greater good? An individual's free choices are not always the best choices for everyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't disagree with you at all. Using your car to proclaim your political beliefs doesn't know any partisan boundaries.
HOWEVER, I've actually kept track at times, and I think my estimate of 99% liberal is not that off (at least in some of the places I've lined in the past 5 years--Chicago (duh), VA/DC (duh), North Carolina (not exactly "blue state")). Not at all arguing that nobody conservative puts on bumperstickers (my favorite example "Hippie Peace -- More dangerous that nuclear war") but that they do
"Jigsaw elections"? You mean Electoral Eollege? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the United States didn't have jigsaw puzzle elections, more moderate voices would gain prominence and the extremists would be pushed to the outskirts.
(I presume you're talking either about the Electoral College system or something else related to election by states rather than general popular vote.)
If the US didn't have "jigsaw puzzle elections" a corrupt political machine in a major urban area would be able to swing enough bogus votes to control the national government.
The election of the congress critters by district, senators by state, and president by state electors is one of the firewalls against tyranny.
(It's also part of the deal by which states with small populations were persuaded to federate with more crowded ones, which could totally swamp their interests if federal elections were by polling the whole mass rather than the jigsaw pieces. Change that and you might see another secessionist movement.)
Re:"Jigsaw elections"? You mean Electoral Eollege? (Score:5, Interesting)
States need to start handing out their electoral votes based on results from the individual representative districts, with the statewide winner getting both 'senate' votes. The "winner takes all" rule is so bizarre, and causes certain states (those with a moderate to high amount of electoral votes and razor-thin state-wide margins) to become more important than other states. I live in California, and Republican presidential candidates don't even bother coming here, and Democratic candidates use us as an ATM machine. They both know that all 55 electoral votes are going Democratic. Those people voting Republican in northern districts aren't being represented in the electoral college vote.
Of course, the second people started talking about using this district-based system, the Democrats started whining, because they knew this would cost them around 20-25 electoral votes that they currently don't have to work for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And rightfully so. There have been recent attempts here in California to make our electoral votes be distributed proportionally instead of all or nothing. Naturally this was proposed by the Republicans since they would then get 20 or 25 electoral votes they currently have no chance at
Re:"Jigsaw elections"? You mean Electoral Eollege? (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I'm not saying the above is a good idea, just wondering.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I call "no true scotsman" fallacy.
The previous Republican majority called itself conservative. They were lauded by media folks who called themselves conservative.
There were no voices saying that the previous Republican majority wasn't conservative until after the government failed miserably at everything it tried to do.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Interesting)
There were no voices saying that the previous Republican majority wasn't conservative until after the government failed miserably at everything it tried to do.
Not true. Many conservatives called the Bush Administration out for No Child Left behind being decidedly un-conservative. Clearly anti-federalist - a big chunk out of state & local rights/control. Beyond that, there were many compelling arguments by conservatives (liberals at the time we very much in favor of NCLB though they later changed) that NCLB was unconstitutional and as a result, at most, participation was optional.
Personally, it's always been about fiscal responsibility money/spending being about as objective of view of government reach as we have. Right or wrong, to some extent, I've always been able to partially justify Reagan's deficit spending because it was necessary for the times and ultimately deserves at least some credit for winning the cold war. Where the circumstances of the times give Reagan some justification (excuse) the Bush administration never had any such reason other than they just liked to spend money.
No true conservative... (Score:3, Insightful)
The No True Scotsman fallacy is only a fallacy when your "no P is a Q" is a synthetic proposition, rather than an analytic one. If one were to say "no bachelor is married", and then someone stood up and said "I'm a married bachelor!", the first speaker would be perfectly correct in replying "if you are married, then you are not a true bachelor, despite what you may call yourself".
Of course, that's not incredibly helpful for us here because most of the qualities people take to be inherent in anyone rightly l
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...
Don't worry, so are they! How I long for the days when the Repulicans were for a government that took less of your money, and the Democrats were for a government that took less of your freedoms. Now both are pro-censorship, and both are for more government spending, and both are for more government power to combat scary things.
How would a "balanced internet" work in the first place? Can you not find a blog aready to cater to any political belief no matter how bizzare? Now I'm the one confused.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
The Libertarians care about you, but they have such a minority you will probably not see a Libetarian president in your lifetime.
No, they don't care about you or anyone else; they care about abstract principles.
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
At least, that's the honest Libertarian response. Depending on who you're talking to, you might hear something else instead, like "That's impossible, the market always provides for everyone! You must not be looking hard enough!" or "Surely there are plenty of charities that can help you out!"
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
Whereas a democrat would say, "Stab Bill Gates, take his money and live in his house instead." Republicans would just slaughter your children and bathe in their blood because they are pure evil.
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others. Virtue shouldn't be forced. Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart. Almost everyone has friends that can help them out or family that can give them a place to stay. A typical response would be that you can't live off of wal mart's pay, to which I reply that you should make do with the smaller paycheck, get another job or get skills that pay more.
The point of the matter is that most libertarians I know are very kind people who give a lot to charity, they just believe in freedom of choice. If you honestly couldn't find a job that could feed your family, then they would try to give you a leg up to get that job, they just wouldn't believe that the government should force them to give it to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see why you troll like that, it's kind of fun to push another ideology to the extreme and then say that it's immoral. The real philosophy of libertarians is that nobody should be forced to do something, like give up their money to help others.
Heh. You do realize that you've simply restated my point, right? Sure, you used gentler words to do it, but that "real philosophy" boils down to exactly what I said earlier.
"Nobody should be forced to ... give up their money to help others" implies that when no one wants to help you out of the kindness of their hearts (as is often the case), you're just screwed.
Almost anyone can get a job, even if it's just working at wal mart.
Many, many people who have jobs still don't make enough to really support themselves and their families. They're one illness or injury away from ban
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they be forced to? Someone who makes the right choices in life (get an education, not get pregnant at 15, etc...) and becomes successful should now be forced to support those who made the poor choices? One of the reasons we're in this credit/housing mess right now is that we aren't letting people take the p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarians (Score:3, Interesting)
There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor.
Again, you're blaming people for circumstances which are often beyond their control. If you've never been poor and don't know anyone who is, it can be hard to understand the difficulty of getting out of that situation, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
I was born poor. I came from a low income family, my dad was enlisted in the US Air Force from which he retired, and my mom worked her way through a 2 year technica
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think many democrats are even that far left, unfortunately.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically, those states consistently rank higher than the US in "quality of life" and in fact, are starting to rank higher than the US in "per capita income" as well as economic stability indicators, among other things.
Doh!
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Informative)
As a citizen of one of said Nordic welfare states, I think most of us (including those who agree with their ideologies) consider both your major parties to be right-wing.
Accusing the Democratic party of being communist is like accusing Hugo Chavez of being a libertarian anarchist.
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are fascists who want a few large corporations to take power, so they can claim people have freedom (even though they don't, because they're being oppressed by the corporations).
The difference is that government power has the force of law, and you cannot escape. With "corporate power", it's entirely voluntary to be under it. And if you don't like it, you can always start your own entity. Example: The Democrats decide to ban "hate" music because it hurts people's feelings. You can go to jail and there is no escape. On the other hand, don't like the policies of the oh-so-corporate RIAA? Listen to independent music. Or create your music.
You have a much better chance of competing against an evil corporation than you do against an evil government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Corporate power is backed by the government; that's why it's insidious. Without a government granting a corporate charter, and making laws favorable to large corporations (over small ones), they wouldn't have the power they do. So their backers can claim, falsely, that you have a choice. Yeah right.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly. The government has grant
Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Sheesh, any time the concept of business is defended, I must be a "Randian". Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Libertarians (and "Objectivists"_ are simplistic and deluded.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly.
First of all, electric power is a *government* monopoly. Second of all, I can generate my own power anytime I want. Ever heard of private generators? Solar? The reason power is a monopoly is because of the wiring issue.
In many industries, you're not allowed to create a new, competitive company, because all the technology is wrapped up in patents, so that the entrenched players can keep out the newcomers. Patents are another government-granted monopoly.
Oh, please. Name the industry that is so dominated by patents that newcomers can't enter it. In any case, the whole point of patents is to protect the individual inventor. Don't like corporations dominating an industry? Try a world without patents.
It's hard to compete against a much larger company that has big economies of scale, or can afford to sell at a loss until you go under.
Exactly! You understand, yet don't like patents? That's just bizarre. Anytime a small inventor invents something, the big companies would simply out-manufacture them instantly and put them out of business.
How would another company compete against a behemoth[Microsoft] of that size?
Incredibly easily, actually. The problem is that no one has had the balls to produce a redesigned, absolutely, positively, 100%-compatible Windows clone. And don't give me the old wrong answer about "Microsoft will just change Windows to make it incompatible." That's always been crap. Sure, Microsoft can break their own products, but they can't break everyone else's products, and you can also keep an antitrust war chest to sue Microsoft if they tried to make Office incompatible.
The first company that produces a *good* Windows clone will make billions. They'll instantly get 20-30% marketshare.
At least in theory, the government is elected by the people, and is subject to the court system, elected officials, etc. Corporations are only subject to their upper management.
The "people" is not just you, it's also everyone else. Even if the government listened to "the people", that doesn't mean you agree with whatever the whims of "the people" happen to be. With a corporate world you don't need to beg politicians to do whatever you want. And also notice that corporations are OWNED by "the people" -- which you also can own -- and that's a hell of a lot more direct power.
Re:Voluntary? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
With sufficiently predatory lending practices and things of that nature, it becomes far less than "voluntary" too.
Good example! "Predatory"? Who held a gun to the head of these idiots who got loans they couldn't afford? As I said, being exploited by a corporation is entirely *voluntary*.
On the other hand, try opting out of various laws that you don't like. I'm sure I don't need to make a list of various laws that are stupid, yet you have no choice to suffer them.
Re:Voluntary? Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Government grants this protection to business men so they can operate with immunity. Does this seam fair?
It is absolutely more fair than the alternative. Let's say you're the CEO of Ford, and someone has an accident and dies in one of your cars. Should the CEO be brought up on charges of Involuntary Manslaughter? On every single accident? Basically, every company CEO would be *personally* responsible for everything that ever happened in the company, whether they personally designed anything or not. Does that seem fair? You might be thinking, "Good! Then they'll be extra careful!" Except that it's literally impossible for anyone to be perfectly in charge of everything.
So make those directly in charge responsible? So, basically, you're saying that any engineer that works on a car is at risk of going to jail for any defect? Or any programmer that works on medical equipment? How would do it?
In the world you want, nothing risky would ever get created. Certainly no one is going to try creating a new drug -- you'd have to be insane, if the risk was murder charges. And look at the false charges from the silicone breast implants -- that was totally fraudulent. In your world, the designers and/or CEO all would've gone to jail.
There is a reason corporations exist. It's because society couldn't function without them.
In the free market, a *true* free market, there are no special protections awarded to people.
In a "true" free market, society falls apart.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly - organized crime (ie corporations) would take over if the feds withdrew. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Congratulations on winning a debate that we weren't even having. Who talked about the feds "withdrawing"? Of course government is necessary to step in and maintain law and order, and other protections of civil rights. That doesn't mean that I don't prefer, all things being equal, to voluntarily dealing with a corporation than involuntarily dealing with the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, government can be shaped by the people to reflect their needs and values, corporations cannot.
Which has a more direct effect:
A single vote among two candidates that represent a broad spectrum of issues (some I agree with, some I don't)... OR
Choosing DSL because my Cable Internet is too expensive, AND choosing the iPhone because I like the browser better instead of Nokia, AND driving a Honda instead of an American car brand because of better quality, AND going to the gas station across the street fro
with smaller news rooms....troll (Score:2)
Don't worry... (Score:3, Insightful)
So are us Republicans. We vote for these guys, and then they act like Democrats.
Then we go vote for a staunch small government man like Ron Paul and find our votes (at least in New Hampshire) did not get recorded for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:2)
But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...
On what grounds? If you mean in terms of defense, sure. But what about Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and simplification of the tax code? I am not arguing one way or the other, but if you eliminated Social Security and Medicare alone, you would decrease Federal spending by at least 42%!
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget [wikipedia.org]
So does this mean? (Score:5, Funny)
If /. were fair and balanced would each posting as an AC be treated as +1 subscriber?????
Re:So does this mean? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, the moderation system is clearly yet another manifestation of the oppression of the underclass by the elite bourgeois ruling classes. Who gets to say what is "good" and "bad" anyway? The suppression of alternate points of view is nothing less than the suppression of alternate non-mainstream modes of knowledge. All points of view are equally valid, therefore all posts should automatically be +5, always (including this one, *cough cough*).
70% of Americans (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't complete blithering idiots.
Hey, I'm just being "balanced"... if we're talking about 30% we have to talk about the other 70% too in order to be fair, right?
Re:70% of Americans (Score:4, Funny)
Aren't complete blithering idiots.
Must...resist...bait...
Re: (Score:2)
70%? That's like, half, right?
All blogs are editorials (Score:5, Insightful)
Editorials are opinion, not legitimate reporting of facts.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Editorials are opinion, not legitimate reporting of facts.
So? Opinion isn't exempt in the Fairness Doctrine. In fact most of the application of the doctrine on the airwaves has traditionally been against editorial content. The argument goes that there's only so much broadcast bandwidth out there, and so since the government licenses the airwaves, they have a responsibility to see that all viewpoints get a fair shot.
Never mind that with the huge selection of opinion avenues... radio, TV, satellite, print, the Internet... the idea of bandwidth scarcity is essentially obsolete, especially for the Internet. But that hasn't stopped the doctrine's backers from trying to bring it back from the dead anyway, and worse, they want to apply it to non-broadcast media.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't. All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies, or at least quiet them down some. The doctrine is nothing but government nannyism, and its death was too long in coming. For those of you that are so eager to bring it back, think long and hard about that. Sooner or later, someone you don't like is going to get elected, and use it against you.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great idea and very important (Score:5, Insightful)
Because with only three blogs in the blog-o-sphere, the millions of Americans these blogs serve really deserve government-mandated balance.
Oh, what's that, there's more than three? How many, then? Five?
Political Banner Ads (Score:2)
The truth is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Balanced is not equal to fair.
"Balanced" in this case means that only the democratic party and the republican party will have their voices heard.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
We also have to stop thinking that there must be 2 sides to every issue and that both sides are equally valid. That sort of thinking is where you get things like the media treating Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory, because they're convinced that every issue must have two equally valid sides, even when only one side is actually supported by any kind of scientific evidence.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not being supported by scientific evidence doesn't necessarily make something invalid either.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
It does when the whole argument revolves around presenting it in a science class. The media spent plenty of time on that issue, and often took great pains to make it seem like the arguments for and against ID in science classes were both equally valid, and should be given equal time.
Re:The truth is simple. (Score:4, Funny)
So you're saying there are 2 ways of thinking - either think that there are only 2 of everything, or think that there are more than 2 sides to everything?
(Well, am I right or am I wrong?)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> "Balanced" in this case means that only the democratic party and the republican
> party will have their voices heard.
If only. In practice the "Fairness Doctrine" meant overt political programs were off limits period. Except for the newscasts which were all (90%+ with the rest deep in the closet) Democrats and the not so hidden political plotlines in most 'entertainment that always promoted the Democratic talking points of the moment. So in effect it meant Republicans had Firing Line on PBS and the
I would say... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that there's no way something this asinine could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. Especially since political speech is exactly the epicenter of that amendment. I would say that, but I also witnessed all three branches of the federal government fail us spectacularly on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
Already was the law from 1949-1984ish (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that there's no way something this asinine could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. Especially since political speech is exactly the epicenter of that amendment. I would say that, but I also witnessed all three branches of the federal government fail us spectacularly on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
All it takes is enough sympathetic judges, and viola, it's Constitutional... even if it isn't Constitutional.
One thing both political sides seem to increasingly agree on these days is that the judicial branch may be the weak link in the design of our Constitutional guarantee of rights. If a judge says so, it's so, even the the Constitution directly contridicts it. All you need is a majority of SCOTUS opinions, and what's done is done. Once SCOTUS rules, unlike a Congressional Bill or an Executive Order, there's no way to appeal it. It's done. Final. You'd have to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to change that ruling, and if the issue came back before SCOTUS, they could simply void the meaning and spirt of the amendment with a stroke of their pens.
Increasingly, the written opinions of the Supreme Court is our real constitution, not the 200+ year old document itself.
Checks on the SCOTUS (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On come on, this comment after the last 8 years of the Republicans screwing the constitution for all it's worth? Or is it just that they didn't threaten to take your guns away, so it's all ok?
Bah, I hate them all, the Dems. just seem like they'll be the least worst ... but it's hard to tell (and rewarding the Republicans after the last 8 years isn't a pretty alternative). Kang
Will this include issues such as (Score:5, Interesting)
Holocaust denial? Must both sides be given a equal voice by mandate? How about flat-earth theory? Or moon hoax hypothesis? Or is this where the government suddenly decides what is "mainstream" and what is kooky. If they decide that, where will the boundary be for other, much more legitimate ideas that Government may not like. Will it be that they suddenly decide what the bounds of fair discourse is by controlling the parameters?
Why is it that so many people think that the government, a large force with its own agenda, will do a much better job than many individuals not geared around a singular goal/entity? The Patriot Act was not patriotic, and the Fairness doctrine will not be fair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you make a false assumption there:
Why does the number of sides to an issue have to be 2?
"Which party is the best?" Are you saying that you have to take a Democrat and a Republican? What about the other parties?
You mention the Earth's shape. You would talk to the flat-earth people, and then whom? The people who believe that the Earth is a sphere? What about the scientists who think it is an oblate spheroid [wikipedia.org]. What about people who think it is a more com
Oh goody... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why education is a prerequisite for democracy. Or at least for democracy to work.
Crap like this combined with the evidence from the republicans that people have finally realized they can vote themselves infinite money either has to end now (hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea, just like a credit card! What could possibly go wrong!), or things are going to get really bad really quick.
It's a horrible, horrible idea and would certainly end up being racist as well, but you really have to wonder if voting shouldn't be a little more... restricted. Like, requiring that you have a history of not failing personal economics in order to have any influence on national economics? Or basic understanding of science to be able to influence science policy? Maybe it's not possible to do this, but you have to wonder if anything else can work in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
What hope does a kid have of thinking critically and rationally about US military/foreign policy when (s)he's been quoting the pledge of allegiance since his diaper-years?
A Good Democracy Requires: (Score:2)
An educated moral and armed society.
Re:Oh goody... (Score:4, Funny)
hey, lets lower taxes and not increase spending, that's a *great* idea,
That's one of the best fucking ideas I've ever heard. However, from your criticism, I'm guessing the word "not" wasn't supposed to be in there.
Re:Oh goody... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I do not mean indoctrination. In our democracy the average person's job in government is to evaluate candidates' ability to govern. When the ability to govern includes decisions about technology and the average person doesn't understand technology at all... well then the average person can't do their job. So how is the "correct" candidate determined now? The media? Whoever is more charismatic? By the people already ruling? None of those systems work for long. An independent media will elect whoever gets it more money, eventually you'll end up with a charismatic idiot (or worse yet genius who wants to be a dictator), and of course no matter how noble the people who first ruled and no matter how well they choose their successors eventually corruption will creep in through the margin of error.
I'm not talking a matter of political philosophy, not republican vs democrat, not liberal vs conservative, not even libertarian vs authoritarian. I'm talking a matter of people who think it's ok to have a NINE TRILLION dollar debt and keep lowering taxes and increasing spending. It's simply NOT ok. It's a matter of people voting away democracy in the name of safety because they don't know any better. Democracy can't exist without people realizing this is a problem, and they can't do that without education.
As for wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner... Yea, democracy sucks. It's just that everything else sucks more. What's your better system? The only one I can think of is a benevolent dictatorship... and who decides who the next dictator is? What happens when they make a mistake and pick one that isn't quite so benevolent? No, the best we can do is democracy with checks and balances as strong as possible without grinding government to a halt.
That same 30% then asked... (Score:4, Funny)
That same 30% then asked...
wtf is a blog?
Democrats trying to turn us into a nanny state (Score:2)
Democrats are upset that most political talk and political blogs lean conservative. They still have the drive-by media locked up, they should be happy.
Re:Democrats trying to turn us into a nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you on everything but the smoking issue. Your right to smoke does not over rule my right to not breath in your smoke. And before you say "then you can leave", no, that's not the way the world works. I don't have to quit my job because you want to smoke.
Easy to circumvent (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Artificially limiting discourse... (Score:2, Insightful)
We need new ideas, new ways of thinking about issues, each other, and ourselves in order to evolve as a society and as a species.
Now, for any organization that claims to be journalistic in nature *of course* balance is essential. That includes online news sites, which should not be trying to swaying opinion but rather about conveying facts in the most objective way possible in or
Typical (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't mean typical of Democrats or Republicans either. Typical of people that want to tell you what you think, act, feel, and say through government policy. The Fairness Doctrine was essentially bullshit from the beginning. Regardless of what the proponents of the Fairness Doctrine were trying to accomplish a half century ago, it cannot apply to the Internet.
This policy was originally meant to control content on the PUBLIC airwaves. It required broadcasters to act as "mediators" and notify all parties when an "attack" was made and offer equal time for a response. It was 100% political.
The Internet is not owned by the public. It is a privately owned infrastructure, that interestingly enough, has only a portion of it residing in the US. Any arguments that are based on the fundamental premise of a public owned medium to communicate fall flat.
"Blogging" is an incredibly vague term. It can represent entities from the average citizen with something to say, to corporate sponsored journalists. Some entities could own their own domain and pay for hosting services, while others could merely obtain free hosting through other companies. It is not possible to make the owners of the websites police all of their own content, track down any affected parties, and then donate web space and bandwidth for an opposing view. Attempting to create an infrastructure of control over the medium is laughable at best.
Government controlling content on the Internet is a slippery slope to be sure and is not even practical. In every instance the US government has attempted to exert control, the offending content has merely moved outside of the US.
This is about politically motivated people that want to control speech offensive to them and their position. Hiding their true motivations in an idealogical appeal for fair representation of all viewpoints is just covering the desire for censorship.
If there is an honest desire for fairness here, it should not be accomplished through controlling content on the Internet, but rather by the creation of public resources on the Internet. The government can have it's own resources and policies that govern those resources. Let all the political people go there and demand their 15 minutes each to slam each other.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
Foxnews has apparently brainwashed a lot of people into thinking that "fair and balanced" is even a desireable thing. How about objectivity and truth, instead? Giving airtime to insane/wicked opposing viewpoints does no one any good. And the idea that this should be f
Balanced? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps the word I am looking for is "hypocritical".
OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Less than 1/3 of all Americans support the censorship of political blogs.
b) 70% of Americans do not support regulation of political blogging.
Same data, different spin.
Illiberal liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are so many supposedly liberal-minded people so ... illiberal? Is it because they think a fairness doctrine would only be used against Republicans?
It's like they want to attack their enemies by removing the oxygen out of the air, without considering how they themselves will breath.
It's become increasingly common these days (Score:3, Insightful)
Much as we see "neoconservatives" people who despite touting the conservative label are all about big government, there seems to be "neoliberals". Basically their idea is "You have the freedom of speech to say something that I agree with." If you say things they don't like, they want to silence you. The funny thing is they'll do this while claiming to be supporting free speech. See the problem is you are "bigoted" or "close minded" and thus what you want to say shouldn't be said.
The only reason for the fairness doctrine... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason that the fairness doctrine was needed was because media outlets were owned by a few rich and powerful people. Opposing points of view couldn't get to the public otherwise.
Literally anyone can start their own blog for free and talk about anything they want. If a blogger is saying something that you disagree with, there is no need to force him to display your opinions on his blog. Just start your own.
Subject (Score:3, Insightful)
When tax money funds my server and connection, I'll let people who disagree with me guest-post in my Slashdot trolling.
Until then, fuck those guys.
First Amendment vs. Fairness Doctrine (Score:3, Informative)
The Fairness Doctrine cannot be applied to Internet blogs because it violates the basic tests that the Supreme Court has come up with for regulating speech:
* TV and radio can be regulated because they are "pervasive" (the signal comes into your house whether you want it or not) and "scarce" (there is only so much useful spectrum in any given area, so only so many voices can be heard.) Internet blogs are not pervasive (you have to seek them out) and they certainly aren't scarce (anyone who wants to can build a blog using free tools.)
* Commercial speech can be regulated. Not applicable here.
* Dangerous/inciting/traitorous speech ("fire in a crowded theater", "clear and present danger") can be regulated. Not applicable here.
* Obscenity. Not applicable here.
Note that, unlike the Internet taxation issue, this is a basic Constitutional problem. Unless one of the rules above is violated, the Supreme Court will knock down any attempt to regulate speech on the Internet. So I don't think this much matters. Even if this were a majority of people rather than just 30%, they're not going to get any kind of law passed to regulate Internet blog speech.
What this means (Score:3, Insightful)
What this means in practice is that you have freedom of speech, as long as you agree with whoever is currently in power. (Both parties agree that it's only fair when it agrees with their current platforms.)
Fairness (Score:3, Funny)
I think it is basically a good idea; the only problem being how to define and enforce fairness. Several countries in Europe have something similar, which is why European news seem so much more varied than American news. The broadcasting services in Europe seem to have originated mostly as public services, and building in some sort of 'fairness-doctrine' only seemed natural, since the state is supposed to be the servant of the whole of the population, not just the party that happens to be in power.
The sad fact is that American news services are anything but balanced, which at the end of the day harms democracy. How can the electorate make an informed choice about anything when the news are all distorted? People aren't stupid - they can see that each broadcaster has its own agenda, so they give up trying to find out what really goes on and only tune in on the channels that don't challenge their chosen belief; and in effect politics, political news and political ideologies have become irrelevant backgroud noise, replaced by indifferent gossip about the politicians - like "Obama sounds like Osama, hur hur".
How can we repair America? That what I'd like to know. I know from experience that Americans are good and decent people; so why is the American nation such a vile bastard in many ways? Whatever else the explanation is, it is clear that the government of America is not a true representation of its people.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to note, in this case, the 30% seem to contain more Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, there might even be some them there Re-puh-blee-kans on Slashdot as we speak...I mean type.