Conquer Club

... Censorship in the USA... could be law.

... man... this stuff scares me.

...

Well, you could argue that not presenting both sides of an argument is censorship too. In fact i think I will: Not presenting both sides of an argument is censorship.

the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues

If that's all that is involved then I support it. It's just more proof that in reality we do have to give up a little bit of freedom to protect the rest of it.

... Thanks for the quick reply there, Heavy.

... Though I would argue that it's a person's responsibility to make their own judgments and ANY action by government to limit or hinder a message is something to be afraid of.

... Radio is market-driven, as is TV, and much of the internet. So conservatives listen to more radio than their liberal counterparts - and so will go the advertising.

... Liberals tend to gravitate toward more modern media outlets, and so goes that advertising, where it applies.

... It's the way it should be.

True, radio is market driven. But who do you think owns the airwaves that the radio companies broadcast on? I'll tell you, you do. The American people own the airspace that TV and radio transmit over.

Since radio leases the bandwidth from the government, the fairness doctrine has been in place to make sure that these companies that are using the bandwidth that you own fairly represent the ideas of the people.

Nobunaga wrote:... Thanks for the quick reply there, Heavy.

... Though I would argue that it's a person's responsibility to make their own judgments and ANY action by government to limit or hinder a message is something to be afraid of.

fine, but firstly news shouldn't be a 'message' - that sounds like advertising and that's the risk that we take listenign to or reading ideological mouthpieces. Biased information is propaganda (as is advertising, in a way). Ideally news should be unbiased reportage of facts with informed opinion. I don't think a law requiring balanced reporting of news - not comment (e.g. rush limbaugh, michael moore let's say), just news - is too much to ask. Although making it a legal requirement might be tricky - do you have to interview a creationist every time you do a story on archaeology, or a Grand Wizard every time you do an article on affirmative action? How big do minority opinions have to be to be recognised?

... You make a good argument.

... Who then will decide precisely what is fair? Just wondering if there would be some manner of "committee" in Congress (just what we need )

... Any truth to the rumor that the UN is grasping for control of the Internet? I read that in a brief about a year ago and heard nada since. ...

... Probably just a rumor.

... (nmhunate, this was to) ... sound like Yoda here

How is not presenting every opinion censorship? People don't understand what Censorship is. It's the Government telling you that you can't say that. If a corporation refuses to publish your views, that's their right. It's up to the market to decide who listens to what. There are as many opinions as there are people. As soon as you say "Every opinion must be represented" you essentially close down freedom of speech. I can't speak for an hour, I get half and you get half. And we all know that just because there are two sides to every story doesn't mean that they are both valid.

If we run a story on how dangerous Charles Manson was, do we have to give him equal time?

MR. Nate wrote:How is not presenting every opinion censorship? People don't understand what Censorship is. It's the Government telling you that you can't say that. If a corporation refuses to publish your views, that's their right. It's up to the market to decide who listens to what.

I do see your argument Nate; i guess it is different this side of the pond because of the unique way the BBC is funded and its charter. BBC journalists recently received a stern email asking them to correct a perceived liberal bias... in a way the BBC IS 'censored' this way, and that is what makes it brillliant. The market might decide who watches what, but how do you know your source is balanced? Maybe no one cares. I liek to read a conseravtive newspaper now and again but I buy the Guardian because... i'm politically liberal, like the paper is.

If we run a story on how dangerous Charles Manson was, do we have to give him equal time?

No, because that's not news. And there are always naysayers. There are still people who believe the earth is flat but they don't get interviewed every time someone sails around the world, so there is obviously a compromise; and I think it's obvious where balance comes in to a story, and it is only where it is neglected that it stands out. But not, perhaps, to the unwary viewer/listener.

... Here's the link to that BBC story. One version of it, anyway.

Nobunaga wrote:... Here's the link to that BBC story. One version of it, anyway.

Find me a media source which DOESN'T hold some sort of inherent bias! You'll struggle, especially in the US. The BBC is much much better than some sections of the media I could mention...

We need to be aware that everything has some kind of bias or some kind of twist. I read the Guardian, which is pretty left wing, but then I also read the Telegraph, which is a Tory rag most of the time. Hopefully somewhere in the middle I can get a reasonably balanced picture of things I cannot experience myself.

Guiscard wrote:I read the Guardian, which is pretty left wing, but then I also read the Telegraph, which is a Tory rag most of the time. Hopefully somewhere in the middle I can get a reasonably balanced picture of things I cannot experience myself.

I must admit that besides the 2 sides you've mentioned, I'm not that knowledgeable about current differences in British political views. Are there any major 3rd parties in the UK that make any noise? If so, what are their major gripes against the two major ones?

I'm normally not for censorship in the lest. But I can see how easily legislation can be turned on it's head.

A thought comes to mind.....

"You need to send in the Mossad, turn off the BBC, CNN and don't look back"

From what I read about it on Wikipedia it seems like a good idea, although it's a sad state of affairs when broadcasters which also broadcast news have to be required by a law to present more than one side of an issue.

After all it's not as if they were forbidden to present the side they favour, but any serious journalist or newsspeaker should be prepared to present all sides, even ones they don't agree with. That's what journalism is (or should be...) about: informing the public. Leaving out the parts you don't like cannot be journalism under that premise.

luns101 wrote:I must admit that besides the 2 sides you've mentioned, I'm not that knowledgeable about current differences in British political views. Are there any major 3rd parties in the UK that make any noise? If so, what are their major gripes against the two major ones?

Conservative/Tory party - right wing
Labour - left wing
Liberal Democrats - centre

Generally the Lib Dems go left or right of centre depending on how they're feeling at the time, but are slightly less left/right than the other two. As the name suggests, they're more liberal than the other two.


Votes probably go about 30-50% Labour, 30-50% Conservative and around 20% Lib Dems.

In Scotland the Scottish National Party has a fairly big say on things and similarly Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party) does in Wales. The Conservatives are probably the closest thing to an 'English National Party'.

Finally the British National Party is where the nazi scum resides

luns101 wrote:

Guiscard wrote:I read the Guardian, which is pretty left wing, but then I also read the Telegraph, which is a Tory rag most of the time. Hopefully somewhere in the middle I can get a reasonably balanced picture of things I cannot experience myself.

I must admit that besides the 2 sides you've mentioned, I'm not that knowledgeable about current differences in British political views. Are there any major 3rd parties in the UK that make any noise? If so, what are their major gripes against the two major ones?

Well there is a third party, the Liberal Democrats, who are left-wing and who get to come up with ideas like higher rates of income tax and legalising pot and not invading iraq because they are never going to get into power. Having said that, Gordon Brown, who becomes our new prime minister tomorow, offered an old head of the lib-dems a place in his cabinet. And their continued opposition to Iraq war (the other two parties, the centre-left and the centre-right, both agreed on the invasion) won them a few more fans. Their old leader was a charismatic scot who turned out to be a boozehound and had to quit. Current guy is an avuncular scot aged around 120 who nobody seems to take very seriously. I voted for them

The closest thing we have in the US is that media have to give political parties & candidates the same price on advertising. If a particular station or paper goes overboard with worshiping a particular candidate, the other candidates will maybe demand equal coverage under that law, but not usually. Think of this, can papers still endorse candidates? Locally, everyone knows that the News endorses more conservative candidates, and the Free Press the more liberal. But they endorse candidates, which it seems, under this Fairness doctrine, would be illegal.