--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. > > So it's your contention that this policy is to be > invoked only when *all* of commercial broadcasting > has fallen short of these goals?
It's a policy, not a law. That means that it is there to guide regulators as to what they want the airwaves to produce. It is NOT a license to force a single network to have all sorts of points of view on one subject. > > Please. Do you read what you write? > > > 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. > > It's amazing how often you've gotten this wrong. > Nobody is *requiring* ABC to do anything. > > MDixon gets this. Why is it so horribly confusing > to you? Because I think in terms of freedom, not restriction as you do. Come on, can't you find anything in writing that is the "obligation" for a single broadcaster to have all points of view? Come on, I'm waiting. > > > So what you found above is zero support for what you said. > > > > Come up with something else, please. > > No, that'll do the job quite nicely, thanks. > 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/
