Nuclear UnicornNuclear Unicorn's Journal
One of the arguments in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (FD) is that, if left to their own devises, consumers (hereafter, referred to as "consumers" of news and opinion will self-select narrow ranges of opinion that comport with their pre-suppositions and beliefs. The FD, it is proposed, will expose them to a broader range of opinion and in this vein those who produce news and opinion (hereafter, referred to as "producers" should set aside time and space within their publications and broadcasts to those of differing arguments.
I find this proposal lacking.
First of all, not all producers produce in equal measure. For example, Rush Limbaugh broadcasts for 3 hours a day whereas Rachel Maddow runs for only a single hour. It does not matter what percentage of broadcast time is set aside, Limbaugh will enjoy the decisive 3:1 advantage. Moreover, the proposal will invariably dilute the Maddow show more than Limbaugh's.
Second, what those making the proposal are actually saying is: They want those who consume Opinion X to have an equal amount of time consuming Opinion Y. They are cloaking this statement in the guise of regulating producers but at the end of the day it is really the consumers they are targeting.
In order to more closely conform with their intentions my counter-proposal is this --
Do not regulate producers but rather consumers.
If a person consumes news and opinion they must then seek out countering viewpoints or be in violation. Television and internet providers can track consumption habits. They do already for marketing purposes. Whatever time they spend consuming news and opinion from Source X they must spend a regulatory mandated counter-balancing amount of time consuming news and opinion from Source Y.
That way the producers do not have to dilute their time and space while the demand that consumers gain broader exposure to more diverse opinion will be met.
Those found to be in violation can assessed a penalty during the annual tax filing season.
Those who will protest on 1st Amendment grounds can be reminded that the 1A protects the freedom of the press but makes no prohibition towards mandates concerning secular media.
Democracy demands this mandate!
A California teenager who rushed to help a blind classmate being beaten up by a bully has been kicked off the football team.
The high school junior was hailed as a hero for intervening after he saw the 'visually impaired' student being repeatedly hit round the head during lunch break at Huntington Beach High School, California on Wednesday.
Footage, filmed by a bystander, shows the teen knocking the bully to the ground with a single punch to stop the attack.
He leaves the boy lying bleeding on the ground while he checks on the visually impaired victim, before turning back to the attacker and asking him: 'You trying to jump a f***ing blind kid, bro? What the f*** is your problem?'
If we want justice we cannot punish people for doing the right thing -- and, yes, physically defending a victim of violence is the right thing (at least, it isn't wrong).
EDITED TO INCLUDE --
Petition to reinstate Cody.
Thank-you DU'er OriginalGreek
Found this while listening to chick rock on YouTube. I thought I'd share with the peeps.
Brava, gentlemen. O' Brava
-- snip --
On May 4, 2012, Barboza, then 22, was driving through the small, scenic town of Liberty when he was given a speeding ticket.
Clearly sore about the incident, Barboza crossed out "Liberty" on the payment form and replaced it with "Tyranny." He then scrawled the offending phrase across the top, pleaded guilty to speeding and put the form in the mail.
Justice Brian P. Rourke informed Barboza in September of that year that his payment had been rejected and he'd have to make the two-hour trek from Connecticut to appear in court.
There, Rourke lectured Barboza over his use of foul language, before prosecutors from the Sullivan County district attorney's office instructed police officers to arrest Barboza on a charge of aggravated harassment. Barboza was taken to the Liberty police station, where he was booked, fingerprinted and handcuffed to a bench. After being shuffled between courts, he was eventually released when he paid a $200 bail.
Too many with power don't like having their power questioned, mocked or denigrated. Yet, it's their own conduct that undermines them the most.
Chinese authorities have punished 197 people for spreading rumours online about the recent stock market crash and fatal explosions in Tianjin, according to state news agency Xinhua.
A journalist and stock market officials are among those arrested, Xinhua said. It gave no other details.
Separately, the UK's Financial Times says Chinese leaders feel they mishandled their stock market rescue efforts.
The paper, quoting an account of a meeting of senior regulatory officials on Thursday, said the government had decided to abandon attempts to boost the stock market and instead step up efforts to punish people suspected of "destabilising the market".
"It's not the paper dragon we built; that is to blame. It's the people who are talking about the fact we built a paper dragon that need to be dealt with!"
Does anybody know the Mandarin word for "face-palm"?
Profile InformationMember since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 06:33 PM
Number of posts: 19,497
- 2016 (84)
- 2015 (136)
- 2014 (39)
- 2013 (9)
- 2012 (5)