Behold, an intellectual discussion between my brother the highly Conservative and me, the highly moderate. (Can one even BE "highly moderate"?)
Read from the bottom up, which is annoying, I know. The formatting will also be annoying.
I will add to this. The newest posts will be at the TOP.
Start by reading this: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pence-seeks-to-block-fairness-doctrine-2009-02-24.html
_______________________________
From: Katherine < To: Joe Mercurio < Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009
Subject: Re: Found it
I guess they don't fund religious stations because of the separation of church and state. However, I know you can have a religious show on a general station.
Read from the bottom up, which is annoying, I know. The formatting will also be annoying.
I will add to this. The newest posts will be at the TOP.
Start by reading this: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pence-seeks-to-block-fairness-doctrine-2009-02-24.html
_______________________________
From: Katherine < To: Joe Mercurio < Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009
Subject: Re: Found it
I guess they don't fund religious stations because of the separation of church and state. However, I know you can have a religious show on a general station.
Quit knocking NPR! At least they don't sound like raving lunatics. And for real relaxation, tune into the BBC.
BTW, there is no free market without protective regulations. Case in point: I got screwed by a "university" because there was no oversight and no enforcement. There has to be a balance. Otherwise, there is potential for abuse on both sides and either way, WE lose.
----- Original Message -----From: Joe MercurioTo: KatherineSent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:58 PMSubject: Re: Found itThat's the point. In most cases, I don't think so. Sure, there are grants as well as public stations that taxes support, like NPR (No rePublicans Radio :-) but most of this follows (or is supposed to follow) free market principles. However, the FCC licenses radio stations and can censor inappropriate material. So there's the existing regulatory inroad. Primed for abuse.
From: Katherine < To: Joe Mercurio < Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 9:53:35 PM
Subject: Re: Found it
Does the government even FUND Catholic radio stations? I don't know. Just asking.I don't think there is a thing wrong with a Christian or any other religious station hosting another religion's show. If we had more of that, we wouldn't have the idiocy we have right now. But again....does the government fund such things?----- Original Message -----From: JoeTo: KatherineSent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:48 PMSubject: Re: Found itNope. We allow discrimination based on greed only :-) Seriously, can you ask a Catholic radio station to host a pro-abortion talk show? Typically they don't have a lot of cash and would probably end up shutting down if they get hit with a costly lawsuit. How about a Christian radio station to host a radical Muslim? How far do you take this? Who decides what's "fair"?Joe and Chris Mercurio
From: Katherine < To: Joe Mercurio < Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 9:44:06 PM
Subject: Re: Found it
Yes, I've read Screwtape, long ago.
--I don't believe the government should come in and start "tinkering". --But do you believe people should be discriminated against because of the beliefs they hold? In other words, should stations be able to turn people away simply on the basis of their political leanings?----- Original Message -----From: JoeTo: KatherineSent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:41 PMSubject: Re: Found itEver read Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis? It's hysterically funny and disturbing. Satan's greatest tactics are to divide people into 2 camps and convince each that the other is evil incarnate. No middle ground. Sound familiar?As far as the radio thing goes, we're a free market economy. Most big commericial radio stations want to make money and as long as you can bring in the commercial sponsors to make them that money, you're on. I think we should leave it like that. Period. I don't believe the government should come in and start "tinkering". The logical conclusion to that is what happens in China and happened in Russia: government controls the press. They going to regulate content on the internet next? We should walk as far in the opposite direction as possible. (By the way, it was used during those years but not by him, and never effectively from what I understand)Joe
From: Katherine < To: Joe Mercurio < Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:13:51 PM
Subject: Re: Found it
Another thing to consider: when we label people as "liberal" or "conservative," this is the kind of crap we get. Why? Because people are people. They are complex and shouldn't be categorized. It's a logical error to do so.Most of what we see in Congress and in our leadership is completely illogical. They INDOCTRINATE us with this "liberals and conservatives will never agree" and "the other side is evil" rhetoric. Break the people apart and you will keep your power because they will be too busy fighting amongst themselves. It's the old "divide and conquer" mentality and it's disgusting. This is why we are arguing about radio stations. No one will win in an environment like this.There's nothing wrong with stations offering a variety of shows. And a good radio station WILL do that. But you can't force someone to be a "good" station, now, can you?But you CAN mandate that everyone has equal opportunity regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. I believe most employers legally have to offer that and if they don't, employees do have recourse of some kind.----- Original Message -----From KatherineTo: JoeSent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:04 PMSubject: Found ithttp://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pence-seeks-to-block-fairness-doctrine-2009-02-24.htmlInteresting that "The Fairness Doctrine" was used during the Reagan years. He was a so-called conservative. Now all of a sudden, conservatives are upset by this.I think I would just have it that radio stations can't discriminate--meaning, if I'm a conservative who wants to spout off on a station that has primarily liberal shows, I should be able to. If I am discriminated against, I should have some recourse (being pushed on to another station isn't a recourse). This way, no one is being forced to do anything except provide equal opportunity.What is discrimination? If there are all liberal shows and I'm the only conservative and I have a good history in broadcasting and I'm shown the door, then there's most likely a problem. Companies need to know there are ramifications for such behavior because at that point, THEY are blocking free speech.
Posts
2 comments:
The so called Fairness Doctrine was revoked under the Reagan administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a scheme to eliminate the voice of Conservative talk radio. Talk radio arose after the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated. Talk radio made AM profitable again.
The Fairness Doctrine is unneeded and violation of free speech. The Democrats get only away with this nonsense because the airwaves are supposedly owned by the public.
Please note it is not the public who is unhappy. It public officials, and their Fairness Doctrine would put talk radio out of business.
Thanks for the correction on the Doctine's previous death, Tom. I misread that part of the article.
So long as people aren't being discriminated against based on their beliefs, I don't think government needs to mess with the system. It makes sense to me that a station would have a wider audience if they provided shows with a wide range of ideas. Discrimination is a bad business move.
I've never heard people complain about talk radio except people who listen to talk radio. And if you don't like it, why listen?
Frankly, I have no use for most of it because all you get is a bunch of ranting and raving. If I want that, I can just call some members of my family--heh heh.
Post a Comment