CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Your opinion of the "Fairness" Doctrine?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your opinion of the "Fairness" Doctrine?

post #1 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:40pm
Thread Starter 
Ive never listened to a single moment of Rush Limbaugh.

None of my friends or family members have ever listened to a single moment of Rush Limbaugh.

Im not big on stereotyping, but chances are it's safe to say that if you do listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis (and buy into everything he has to say) you are probably a few sandwiches short of a picnic. But then again a lot of people are so who am I to judge, right?

Anyhoo, I think the Fairness Doctrine is complete and utter bullshit. Its up there with the oil windfall tax as probably one of the worst, most retarded ideas in the history of everything.

Naturally the left has always pushed hard for it because of their unexplainable hatred of talk radio.

Im going to take a shot in the dark here and assume I'm probably the only one on here who has a problem with this nonsense?
Reply
post #2 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:43pm
It's one of those things that, even if you agree with it on an intellectual level (I don't), you have to be blind not to see the hundreds of thousands of ways it could possibly be abused.

So I probably break with most of the left leaning people here. Its intent is fairness, but it lends itself far too easily to abuse.
Reply
post #3 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
It's one of those things that, even if you agree with it on an intellectual level (I don't), you have to be blind not to see the hundreds of thousands of ways it could possibly be abused.

So I probably break with most of the left leaning people here. Its intent is fairness, but it lends itself far too easily to abuse.
The left's version of the Patriot Act perhaps?
Reply
post #4 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:45pm
I don't think it's a good idea. I think it would be impossible to enforce. I think it wouldn't be very beneficial to any one.

But I seriously question the equivalence of a windfall profits tax after what can ONLY be described as price gouging to the Fairness Doctrine.
Reply
post #5 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:46pm
It's a great idea. It was enforced for years. Learn a small amount of history. The airwaves belong to the public and they should be used for the public good.
Reply
post #6 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Naturally the left has always pushed hard for it because of their unexplainable hatred of talk radio.
I don't think it's that hard to explain.

That said, you're still of course right on the completely obvious point that strict regulations on speech are bad. If the Fairness Doctrine goes that far, which I don't think it was meant to do, then it's bad, too.
Reply
post #7 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
It's a great idea. It was enforced for years. Learn a small amount of history. The airwaves belong to the public and they should be used for the public good.
I do know it was enforced.

Im still trying to figure out how you saying that the airwaves belong the the public jives with increased FCC oversight and regulation.

If mouth-breathing rubes listen to talk radio...if they are the main audience...then why not let them have it?

Air America tried and failed to establish itself on the radio. They tried hard. That should probably tell you something.
Reply
post #8 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:50pm
Yeah, liberals listen to music when they drive.
Reply
post #9 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
I don't think it's a good idea. I think it would be impossible to enforce. I think it wouldn't be very beneficial to any one.

But I seriously question the equivalence of a windfall profits tax after what can ONLY be described as price gouging to the Fairness Doctrine.
Looking back over the past year when you take into consideration the falling dollar, the rise in oil price, etc and you mesh that all together then you see how a windfall profits tax makes no sense as the profit margins of major oil companies were still extremely slim. Yes they reporting record earnings, but earnings are vastly different than profits.
Reply
post #10 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Yeah, liberals listen to music when they drive.
Yeah they do. Probably Green Day.

I find myself listening to the soundtrack of The Fountain on the rare occasion I drive.

That and some rap so I can keep it real.
Reply
post #11 of 73
10/20/08 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Looking back over the past year when you take into consideration the falling dollar, the rise in oil price, etc and you mesh that all together then you see how a windfall profits tax makes no sense as the profit margins of major oil companies were still extremely slim. Yes they reporting record earnings, but earnings are vastly different than profits.
Oil companies are recording record profits, too. You know that those of us on the left don't just make this shit up, right?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news...xxon_earnings/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BU6AUQMT9.DTL
Reply
post #12 of 73
10/20/08 at 10:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Oil companies are recording record profits, too. You know that those of us on the left don't just make this shit up, right?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news...xxon_earnings/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BU6AUQMT9.DTL
I know. I believe everything everybody tells me. Did you know Obama is a Muslim, by the way?

Seriously though, take a look at the 10-k of any major oil company.

Their profit margins are incredibly, incredibly small. Exxon alone pays 50% of its income in taxes.
Reply
post #13 of 73
10/20/08 at 10:15pm
haha yeah they are really hurting aren't they!

this is what you look at when you define success, then it really doesn't care how much you pay in taxes:
Quote:
In the fourth quarter, the company said revenue rose 29.5% from a year ago to $116.64 billion.
Reply
post #14 of 73
10/20/08 at 10:18pm
I'm not gonna look deep into those stats because I don't care, BL, but you have to realize that that's revenue, not profit. Revenues could be up even if they're losing money.
Reply
post #15 of 73
10/20/08 at 10:19pm
Thankfully, the two links I show indicate record profits.
Reply
post #16 of 73
10/20/08 at 10:20pm
Wait, what was this thread about again? I had a turkey sandwich today. How about you guys?
Reply
post #17 of 73
10/20/08 at 10:26pm
The thing about the Fairness Doctrine is that it's used as a political bogey man. 90% of the hits you will find on the google will be about how the Democrats are going to bring it back and end talk radio.

It is not a part of the Democratic platform.
Reply
post #18 of 73
10/20/08 at 11:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
I'm not gonna look deep into those stats because I don't care, BL, but you have to realize that that's revenue, not profit. Revenues could be up even if they're losing money.
Trust me, they are not losing money!
Reply
post #19 of 73
10/20/08 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Yeah, liberals listen to music when they drive.
Liberals text while they drive.
Reply
post #20 of 73
10/21/08 at 1:40am
It seems a good idea to me. Buying a transmitter doesn't entitle you to control information, just benefit from the transmission of it. That's how it used to be, anyway.

Quote:
Im still trying to figure out how you saying that the airwaves belong the the public jives with increased FCC oversight and regulation.
Exactly the same way there are rules in National Parks. And I don't think the public speaks much jive these days.

Quote:
If mouth-breathing rubes listen to talk radio...if they are the main audience...then why not let them have it?
Just because the rubes like the way the public discourse is poisoned doesn't mean it's a good thing.

On the other hand, there's no shortage of methods of getting the message out there any more, like there was when the Fairness Doctrine was implemented. I think that was one of the arguments made against it.
Reply
post #21 of 73
10/21/08 at 8:24am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post


Just because the rubes like the way the public discourse is poisoned doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Im sure those on the right could make the same argument for MSNBC.

Like I mentioned above, the left tried with Air America. Didnt work. They can watch TV and the right can listen to the radio.

Everybodys happy.
Reply
post #22 of 73
10/21/08 at 10:04am
It was called the Fairness Doctrine, not the Happiness Doctrine.

And yes, the right often squeals about how the media is biased because it doesn't fellate Republican policy the way Fox does but rather reports on current events. Sadly for them, much of current events involves the consequences of Bush's failure of a presidency. Poor Republicans. Boo hoo.
Reply
post #23 of 73
10/21/08 at 10:19am
Thread Starter 
I must have forgotten that the end result of being "fair" is apparently making sure that people are not happy.

Point is that more guvment intervention is not what we need, especially when what is "fair" is to be decided by a group of people that cant agree on anything.

If you dont like talk radio, dont listen to it. If you dont like MSNBC, dont watch it. Im sure nobody on either side of the political spectrum cries themselves to sleep every night thinking about how an opposing viewpoint isnt being heard on a medium they pay no attention to.
Reply
post #24 of 73
10/21/08 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Thankfully, the two links I show indicate record profits.
Can you explain the difference between a profit and a profit margin to me?
Reply
post #25 of 73
10/21/08 at 10:58am
Profit = Revenue - Expenses
Profit Margin = 1 - (Expenses / Revenue)

In other words, if I pay .80 for something and sell it for one I've made .20 profit. My profit margin is 20%. So when they're recording record profits that means the money they have left over after paying for all their overhead, labor, depreciation, supplies, insurance and the costs of good themselves.
Reply
post #26 of 73
10/21/08 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
I must have forgotten that the end result of being "fair" is apparently making sure that people are not happy.

Point is that more guvment intervention is not what we need, especially when what is "fair" is to be decided by a group of people that cant agree on anything.

If you dont like talk radio, dont listen to it. If you dont like MSNBC, dont watch it. Im sure nobody on either side of the political spectrum cries themselves to sleep every night thinking about how an opposing viewpoint isnt being heard on a medium they pay no attention to.
The problem with this idea is that I'm not only affected if I listen to political talk radio; I'm affected by you listening to political talk radio. Like reality TV, political talk radio appeals to the baser, less intellectual tendencies of Americans, but unlike reality TV, it has an agenda other than to entertain. It's manipulative in that it gives you want you want in terms of visceral reaction, but loads it with ideology. The hosts want you to believe, behave, and vote a certain way. This has real-world consequences for me, even if I never listen to the stuff at all.

I'd have to know the specifics on how a fairness doctrine would be implemented in this era to fully support the idea, but the "if you don't like it, turn it off" idea doesn't hold up as well as it might if we were talking about non-advocacy-oriented entertainment.
Reply
post #27 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:06am
The internet has more left leaning sites than right leaning sites. Are we comfortable with regulating the internet to increase the number of conservative biased websites?
Reply
post #28 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
The internet has more left leaning sites than right leaning sites. Are we comfortable with regulating the internet to increase the number of conservative biased websites?
That's what occurred to me in terms of specifics. It would be incredibly hard to regulate.

To begin with, I don't think one could even establish whether there are more left-leaning sites than right-leaning sites. What constitutes "more," anyway? Does one relatively large, high-profile site like Huffington Post constitute the same thing as a one-page blog dedicated to gun ownership rights? Do we consider the big ones like Fox simply "a single, right-leaning site," or do we need to think of it in terms of number of contributors?
Reply
post #29 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
That's what occurred to me in terms of specifics. It would be incredibly hard to regulate.

To begin with, I don't think one could even establish whether there are more left-leaning sites than right-leaning sites. What constitutes "more," anyway? Does one relatively large, high-profile site like Huffington Post constitute the same thing as a one-page blog dedicated to gun rights? Do we consider the big ones like Fox simply "a single, right-leaning site," or do we need to think of it in terms of number of contributors?
You guys are missing the point. Sites like Huff po would have to add conservative content... it's like 1 radio station has to air both view points.

Easily done through html and easily forgotten like an "about" section of a website. The real killer will be the complaints that require a legal department to field. The reason the fairness doctrine was a death knell to a lot of stations was because they couldn't keep up with the legal demand of the complaints and that's why it ultimately failed. Can sites keep up with the legal demands will be the real question, as conservatives go after them with all their resources.
Reply
post #30 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:36am
When we're old, we'll be reminiscing on the golden age of the free internet, and our kids will be wondering how we could have tolerated that "Wild West" free-for-all environment.
Reply
post #31 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Profit = Revenue - Expenses
Profit Margin = 1 - (Expenses / Revenue)

In other words, if I pay .80 for something and sell it for one I've made .20 profit. My profit margin is 20%. So when they're recording record profits that means the money they have left over after paying for all their overhead, labor, depreciation, supplies, insurance and the costs of good themselves.
OK, we are getting somewhere. Let's talk widgets. Borrowed from Neal Boortz:

Let's say that you're selling a widget for $10 and you're making a 10% profit. Your profit is $1.00. Your profit margin is 10%. Now let's say that your costs go up by $9 a widget. So, you double the price at the widget store. Now widgets are selling for $20. Your costs are $18 per widget, so you're making $2.00 on every sale. Your profit has doubled to $2.00 per widget, but your profit margin is still 10%. You're still making the same profit on every dollar that you invest in your business, but your profits have doubled!

Profits are the wrong indicator to be looking at. Please don't be fooled by the dumbed down media.
Reply
post #32 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
You guys are missing the point. Sites like Huff po would have to add conservative content... it's like 1 radio station has to air both view points.

Easily done through html and easily forgotten like an "about" section of a website.
That's only if you believe website = station, rather than website = show, and it's more complex than that. There's not a clear 1:1 relationship, which would be one of the problems.
Reply
post #33 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Profit = Revenue - Expenses
Profit Margin = 1 - (Expenses / Revenue)

In other words, if I pay .80 for something and sell it for one I've made .20 profit. My profit margin is 20%. So when they're recording record profits that means the money they have left over after paying for all their overhead, labor, depreciation, supplies, insurance and the costs of good themselves.


Yes, but you failed to factor in the biggest expense when it comes to making money: taxes.

Exxons profit margin for year ending 2007 was 7.6%. US manufacturing as a whole was 5.8%. If you remove the domestic auto industry, that number jumps to 9.2%.
Reply
post #34 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post
OK, we are getting somewhere. Let's talk widgets. Borrowed from Neal Boortz:

Let's say that you're selling a widget for $10 and you're making a 10% profit. Your profit is $1.00. Your profit margin is 10%. Now let's say that your costs go up by $9 a widget. So, you double the price at the widget store. Now widgets are selling for $20. Your costs are $18 per widget, so you're making $2.00 on every sale. Your profit has doubled to $2.00 per widget, but your profit margin is still 10%. You're still making the same profit on every dollar that you invest in your business, but your profits have doubled!

Profits are the wrong indicator to be looking at. Please don't be fooled by the dumbed down media.
But what your model doesn't account for because we're talking real life, not widgets, is that costs are only a small part of the expenses. The price of gas shouldn't double because the price of oil doubles.
Reply
post #35 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Yes, but you failed to factor in the biggest expense when it comes to making money: taxes.

Exxons profit margin for year ending 2007 was 7.6%. US manufacturing as a whole was 5.8%. If you remove the domestic auto industry, that number jumps to 9.2%.
Taxes are accounted for after profits are calculated.
Reply
post #36 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
That's only if you believe website = station, rather than website = show, and it's more complex than that. There's not a clear 1:1 relationship, which would be one of the problems.
Website = station and articles|editorials|blogs = show.

An interesting question would be; Where would XM|Sirius fall into this? Would talk radio flock to satalite if it's a safe haven? Would the listeners follow?

Also, how would internet stations work with this?
Reply
post #37 of 73
10/21/08 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
But what your model doesn't account for because we're talking real life, not widgets, is that costs are only a small part of the expenses. The price of gas shouldn't double because the price of oil doubles.
False. I think you need some Finance101.
Reply
post #38 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:05pm
Couldn't you equate the internet to cable channels? You have to pay to access both, so it's technically not free unfettered public access.
Reply
post #39 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:05pm
I don't know. I've run a business and I'm fairly sure that COGS is only a facet of expenses. Adminitrative expenses don't go up, labor, overhead... none tied to the price of oil.
Reply
post #40 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:12pm
Psst. I'm an accountant. Do a little more research.

By the way a better model for you to use:

Revenue - COGS = Gross Margin - Expenses = Net Profit
Reply
post #41 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBarr View Post
Psst. I'm an accountant. Do a little more research.

By the way a better model for you to use:

Revenue - COGS = Gross Margin - Expenses = Net Profit
Psst... I've run a business. Doubling your COGS does not merit doubling the price because expenses do not correspondingly increase.
Reply
post #42 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Couldn't you equate the internet to cable channels? You have to pay to access both, so it's technically not free unfettered public access.
That's the problem. You can equate the internet or aspects of the internet to virtually anything, but you're not going to find a sound 1:1 analogy.
Reply
post #43 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Couldn't you equate the internet to cable channels? You have to pay to access both, so it's technically not free unfettered public access.
Also it isn't like the quote \ unquote peoples airwaves.

How would you regulate sites that base out of other countries? What prevents HuffPo from uprooting to the netherlands or Australia.

I mean, that's what torrent sites are doing right? a shell game of you can't find the servers or some such??

Would we have internet censorship like in China?

Man... this just opens a field day of never ending questions.
Reply
post #44 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:30pm
Which is why I suppose it's a good thing that Obama doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine.
Reply
post #45 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Couldn't you equate the internet to cable channels? You have to pay to access both, so it's technically not free unfettered public access.
Some cities provide free wi-fi, so it gets a bit more complicated than that.

There's also lots of free accesible services that are the foundation of the internet, and you don't really pay for those, see DNS for example.
Reply
post #46 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Also it isn't like the quote \ unquote peoples airwaves.

How would you regulate sites that base out of other countries? What prevents HuffPo from uprooting to the netherlands or Australia.

I mean, that's what torrent sites are doing right? a shell game of you can't find the servers or some such??

Would we have internet censorship like in China?

Man... this just opens a field day of never ending questions.
I think one could make a case for a fairness doctrine that excludes the internet, due to its participatory nature. There's a truer sense of a free market of ideas there. With a few exceptions, radio and TV stations are driven nearly exclusively by profit and have far greater monopolies on use than anything on the internet (with the exception of utilities like Google, which is politicized in a sense, but not in a hugely apparent manner).

I do find it curious that, despite all of their bitching about the liberal media elite, it's almost always conservatives who lose their shit over the fairness doctrine.
Reply
post #47 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I do find it curious that, despite all of their bitching about the liberal media elite, it's almost always conservatives who lose their shit over the fairness doctrine.
Bread, buttered sides, etc.

Fuck them.
Reply
post #48 of 73
10/21/08 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
Psst... I've run a business. Doubling your COGS does not merit doubling the price because expenses do not correspondingly increase.

Seriously, you are wrong. This may sound snarky, but this may be the reason you aren't still running a business.

Revenue - COGS = Gross Margin - Expenses = Net Profit

Example:

$10 Revenue - $4 COGS = $6 Gross Margin - $3 Expenses = $3 Net Profit

Now if COGS is doubled and price does not go up, this is what happens:

$10 Revenue - $8 COGS = $2 Gross Margin - $3 Expenses = $(1) Net Loss
Reply
post #49 of 73
10/21/08 at 1:05pm
You and all your logic. Bah. Numbers...bah!
Reply
post #50 of 73
10/21/08 at 1:06pm
I have two problems with the fairness doctrine. First, who declares what is fair? Same problem I have with religion around morality. Why should the government decide who/what is fair? Of course whatever party is in power will make that decision so fairness will change and be arbitrary. So its basically bullshit.

Second, this isn't 1982. There are millions of alternative voices available for your in 2008. And almost all of them are "free" (yes, I understand that everyone doesn't have the Internet).
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Your opinion of the "Fairness" Doctrine?