--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > <snip> > > > > Show me a law where it says that the public airwaves are > > > > obligated to present both side of a story. Such a law > > > > would, indeed, be a violation of the first amendment. > > > > > > I didn't say there was a law, Shemp. I said there > > > was an obligation. It's called the "public interest > > > standard," and it is FCC policy (as opposed to > > > a regulation). > > > > Well, fuck obligations...especially when they violate freedom of > > speech. > > Well, obviously it isn't *censorship*, because the > obligation involves *more* speech, not *less* speech. > > And such an obligation (I'm still waiting to see where in > > writing it even says that such an obligation exists) is a diversion > > from what we're discussing. > > Oh, my goodness, no, it's not a diversion. Hard > to understand how you could have missed the connection. > > ..AND definitely doesn't justify your > > version of censorship. > > You forgot, I don't advocate censorship, I'm immovably > opposed to it. > > > So, dearie, show us where this obligation exists in writing, > > please... > > Here's an excerpt from a discussion thereof > (there are many such discussions on the Web > if you care to search for the phrase): > > In essence, the public interest standard in broadcasting has > attempted to invigorate the political life and democratic culture of > our nation. Commercial broadcasting has often performed this task > superbly. But when it has fallen short, Congress and the FCC have > developed new policy tools that try to achieve those goals. Specific > policies try to foster diversity of programming, assure candidate > access to the airwaves, provide diverse views on public issues, > encourage news and public affairs programming, promote localism, > develop quality programming for children, and sustain a separate > realm of high-quality, noncommercial television programming.
Nothing cited above supports your contentions. All the worthy principles cited apply to broadcasting IN GENERAL. It does NOT apply to a single broadcaster such as ABC. Of course you and I and everyone wants diversity and as many opposing points of view on as many subjects as possible. And that's what we get with a free press because the more "speakers" who are allowed to express their views, the more diversity you get. But that principle doesn't -- and absolutely MUST NOT! -- bind an individual speaker or single broadcast outlet to having more than one point of view always on one subject. And that, my dear, is what we were discussing: requiring ABC to edit and/or censor their creation. So what you found above is zero support for what you said. Come up with something else, please. > > http://www.mediainstitute.org/gore/draft_II.html > > The basic principle behind the public interest standard > should be obvious: Because the broadcast networks make > huge profits from their use of the airwaves, which are > owned by the public and licensed to the networks for > virtually nothing, the networks should operate in the > interests of the public. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
