December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« Obama Volunteer Organizing Website to Remain Up | Main | The First 100 Hours »

November 07, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Can we purge these people who supported the war like Friedman and Kristol rather than provide them with a bigger stage? They have no credibility.

Purge them? I know Obama was the change candidate, but I don't remember him promising American gulags.

I doubt sending them to American gulags (Gitmo, and the super-secret black sites) is particularly what he has in mind... but taking away their playground positions on prominent TV and news papers would be a good start... and that can be accomplished in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine wrt the public airwaves... there should also be a public push to breakup the media conglomerates and let in some fresh air...

Collaborate: you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.

"But I don't feel sorry for believing that we need to find a way to collaborate with people to give birth to a different politics in that part of the world."

Pre-emptive war = the new "finding a way to collaborate." Does this guy ever listen to himself?

Mr. Friedman has become an insufferable immoral idiot, and should be disregarded until RIP.

that can be accomplished in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine wrt the public airwaves

Unnecessary, unwieldy, and impossible to implement in today's media environment, not to mention a complete bastardization of the concept of free speech. Of course, the first one's the key, since I'm enough of a hypocrite that I'd probably support the damn thing if I thought it would help.

Plus--and granted, this isn't a substantive critique--just say "Fairness Doctrine" out loud. The name itself is an impotent whine.

gil mann, how is giving an opposing viewpoint an infringement on free speech?

What is being broadcast now, and for the last decade or so, is not representative of even a tiny bit of how the American People feel / think about things in their "real lives"... what we are being "fed" is what one side of the political class in Washington DC and the corporate powers want us to believe / think.

There is no substance or context to any of the "news reportage" that slips the airwaves, it's purely propaganda designed to keep people from thinking too long or too hard about what's going on.

how is giving an opposing viewpoint an infringement on free speech?

I demand that sukabi be balanced out by a commenter who thinks I totally nailed it!

Look, nobody kept liberals from seizing on the power of radio. We sat back and bitched while the right took over a medium. They won their dominance. I'm too lazy to go find out what exactly the FD's original intent was, but when people talk about reinstituting it, what they're saying is, "hey, Rush holds too much sway!" Well, so what? It's not his fault Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann are fucking unlistenable. And I'm a huge "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" fan, so it's not like I'm a hard guy to entertain.

You're not wrong about the big picture issues (I think you're misattributing intent, but that might just be shorthand on your part); information-as-commodity is inherently problematic, and I'd be curious to see what would come of an FCC that did its job instead of acting as an enforcer for the conglomerates. I'm not sure giving the left equal time to opine on the sea of irrelevant bullshit we're swimming in would help all that much.

I'm against the FD on principle, but that aside, haven't you noticed how horribly unfair the internet is to conservatism? Why would we give the right a tool to use against us just as we're ascendant? Let 'em have drive-time. We can afford to be generous, seeing as how we own the future.

p.s. I left out the part about how even with the deck stacked against us, we've been kicking fascist ass for two years straight. There might be Republicans reading and I don't want to rub it in.

Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary. Some sort of recourse to being named in a show would be nice, i.e. if Rush wants to bash William Ayers he has the right to submit a statement or something. Newspapers do this for articles, they ask the subjects of articles to comment on stories. Some sort of equivalent to that practice for new forms of media would be helpful. I'm not sure how it would work though.

Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary. Some sort of recourse to being named in a show would be nice, i.e. if Rush wants to bash William Ayers he has the right to submit a statement or something. Newspapers do this for articles, they ask the subjects of articles to comment on stories. Some sort of equivalent to that practice for new forms of media would be helpful. I'm not sure how it would work though.

I actually remember the Fairness Doctrine at work on television stations: They would introduce Topic A, and then you had two opposing points of view (but only two!). It was dumb. Anyway, it was only desirable when the only game in town was radio and TV. It's not anymore, obviously.

Why does the Fairness Doctrine keep coming up? I never even thought about it until right-wingers brought up paranoid fantasies of them being silenced, and then lo and behold a real liberal pops up and demands that conservatives be silenced. Weird.

So I can just broadcast my show over the airwaves on the same frequency and time during Limbaugh's show? Freedom of speech right?

No? The FCC won't let me? Why are they trampling on my and your freedom of speech?

That's one reason why we need the Fairness Doctrine. Unlike the Internet, radio spectrum is a limited commodity that is managed by the FCC for the public interest. Not the Right's interest, or the Left.

*yawn* DNFTFT, people.

Can we go back to talking about what a douche Tom Friedman is?

Dude, c'mon, a troll is a specific thing, not just the odd man out on a comment thread. I actually think this is a worthwhile discussion, even if I don't know what it has to do with Friedman. Now that we've got a president-elect who's not looking to crack the Seventh Seal, it's probably a good time to debate the finer points.

Can we go back to talking about what a douche Tom Friedman is?

And concede vaginal proximity to that unctuous jerk? Nothin' doin'.

a troll is a specific thing, not just the odd man out on a comment thread. I actually think this is a worthwhile discussion

I think this comment thread is an example of why the Fairness Doctrine is no longer needed. More people will probably read Atrios's post (128k hits/day) than read the original New Yorker article (circulation of about 1 million). Not that the Fairness Doctrine applies to nonbroadcast media, which is also the point. It doesn't apply to cable or satellite at all.

Also, I don't know who Fair and Balanced is, and I am wary of all this stuff coming from the rightwingers about how the left is going to suppress conservative speech.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog


Philadelphia Bloggers