NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #93

It is yellow-colored, but I'm told it tastes like diluted antacids.

i think i'll stick with my beck sauce. it tastes like gasoline and fucking insanity. it gets me straight ripped.

Warning: The following requires thought about the unintended consequences of policy (something Democrats and Republicans don't like to do).

How fairness doctrine stifles free speech:

On the surface, the Fairness Doctrine seems like a good idea: if you present a controversial issue, you need to present a fair treatment of the issue and present both sides of the debate. If the public hears both sides of the issue, goes the logic of the doctrine, they can form a better opinion. Furthermore, the argument continues, the fairness doctrine prevents media owners (or managers) from advocating their own political agendas at the cost of public debate.

However, like most public policy, the unintended consequences of the Fairness Doctrine undermine its intended purpose and cause perverse effects that are more harmful than the problem the doctrine was instituted to fix. The two major ways the Fairness Doctrine stifles free speech are 1) opportunity cost and 2) chill of potential prosecution.

Opportunity cost is simply what you give up in order to pursue a given activity. For example, the opportunity cost of me writing this blog is me playing World of Warcraft - the activity I forgo in order to explain the Fairness Doctrine.

In the case of radio shows, there is only so much time in a given radio show (or in a given day if you say the show could just expand to add additional commentary). In order to present a "fair presentation" of an issue (say, the Iraq invasion), a radio host can must cut in half the ten minutes he wanted to spend explaining what a bad idea it was, and give five minutes to a "pro-war" expert. The extra five minutes he might have spent clarifying his point are now quashed.

Furthermore, radio outlets are businesses - there to make money. A radio host once might simply shoot his mouth off for ten minutes about the stupidity of the invasion. Now he must expend the resources to find a "counter point expert" for his show (and pay said expert), resulting in a drier, less appealing (less money making) show. If the alternative is to mouth off about the stupidity of Lindsay Lohan's latest escapade, needing no additional expert and creating a more appealing ten minutes of commentary, which is he going to choose (at least at the margin)?

Now, look at the station manager's point of view. If his radio jockey "pushes the envelope" on this, he may have to pay the very real costs of dealing with the FCC. He is much more likely to tell his radio jockeys to "stay away from politics", and he will choose non-political programming over political programming at the margin. Thus political speech the would have happened absent regulation is quashed.


The function of radio today is not so much to hold public debate; the function of radio is to spark it. The major effect of the Fairness Doctrine is to stifle public debate about issues, since fewer issues can be addressed due to time restraints, fewer people want to listen, and the threat of potential litigation causes risk-averse broadcasters (who are trying to make money) to avoid controversy (at least at the margin).

PS: I did a quick search, and the Cato Institute has a similar article that is likely clearer than mine.

I don't know where your idea that fair and balanced commentary has to be presented in the same program or by the same commentator, but since this seems to be the very shaky corner-stone of your very flimsy argument, I think I'll give it a kick and watch the whole thing collapse...

And yep. It seems that fairness and balance can be presented by different commentators on different programs. A left leaning host can have a show on right after a right leaning host.

And splat. There's your argument (to mix a metaphor) dead on the floor.

I don't really know why the Fairness Doctrine has been brought up or why people are actually discussing it (and I'm not going to go back and read because it's so stupid that it's not actually worth my time), but the bottom line on the "issue" is this:

It's a gigantic fucking red herring.

NO ONE of any consequence is seriously advocating it's re-instatement. Obama's against it. There have been no recent serious legislative or administrative initiatives in support of it. The issue is simply being brought up by wingnuts who are trying to rile up the gullible base. It's as real as the boogyman, and worth just about as much mental energy.

Hi welcome to the Current Events board here at SG where our stock in trade is wingnuts, red herring (without sour cream), a bit of trolling, followed complaining about trolling, and tangents with tangents linked to side trips down absurdity lane, and periodic detours through lala land.

Did you forget where you were complaining?

SGrizzy brought it up, and yeah, it was a complete red herring. it was actually a red herring within a red herring--he jumped into a discussion about the original article to jabber about the Bill of Rights, and part of his jabbery was the Fairness Doctrine. which, in all fairness (ha!) really is complete crap in this era of easy access to all manner of interweb homepages. the whole point of the Fairness Doctrine is to make sure that information pertaining to important issues is widely available.

Actually, the argument doesn't go "splat".

First, the components of the argument are independent - just because the opportunity cost portion does not apply does not mean the "chilling effect" portion does not apply. The "chilling effect" argument does apply, and with full force.

Furthermore, your statement depends on the interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC. What if the FCC states that "giving a less desirable time block (1pm instead of noon) violates the Fairness Doctrine"?

Finally, even if the "balanced content" does not mean that the same viewpoint must be presented within the same show, the additional cost for having a left-wing show will be having a right-wing show as well, so the cost of political programming is two slots instead of one. At the margin then, lower cost, non-political programming will be substituted for political programming, and a reduction in political debate is suffered.

We're all still trying to figure out why you brought this up.

He's sentimental for Ron Paul.

I was just curious. I thought maybe I missed something in the thread.

It wasn't a red harring.

Short answer:
I was responding to a specific question:

Long answer:

The original article is about some Texans asserting the 10th Amendment. This amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the Federal Government can do something, then the Federal Government can't do it.

The 10th Amendment has been largely ignored and forgotten since the New Deal Court took the Commerce Clause out for a joy ride and destroyed Federalism.

I was maintaining, through my (over the top) post, that the Left has largly ignored (or reinterpreted) the entire Bill of Rights. I pointed to the Fairness Doctrine as an example of the Left ignoring the First Amendment when it suites them.

This started a series of posts that responded to that post, including one that explicitly mentioned the Fairness Doctrine (and one or three private messages to me asking for clarification on the subject), and I responded with a more detailed justification of my claim that the Fairness Doctrine violated the First Amendment.

It wasn't a red harring - more like a change in the conversation (which I didn't intend).

I wasn't trying to be a troll - I made a sarcastic, off the cuff comment (that part is troll-like) that was not intended to be responded to (that part is not troll-like).

My apologies for derailing the discussion.

er, you actually weren't:

you brought it up all by yourself, apropos of nothing. that whole post was apropos of nothing. but i suppose you're right--since nobody except you (and other conservatives seeking to scare people into agreeing with you) is actually talking about seriously about the possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, it's not really a red herring. it's actually more of a straw man.

the Fairness Doctrine is a ridiculous idea in these times, but i really don't see what it has to do with the thread.

Explination of the sequence of events:

1. Article posted that relates to the 10th amendment.

2. I make a post claiming that the left ignores not only the 10th amendment, but the entire Bill of Rights, suggesting (over-the-top) that said Texas govener does not go far enough.

3. Message appears on forum (and additional messages which shall remain private appear in my inbox) asking (perhaps rhetorically) for clarification, particularly on how I think the Fairness Doctrine violates the First Amendment.

4. I posted a clarification.

I never made the claim that the "liberals" (oh how that word is a pool label) wanted to bring back the fairness doctrine, though I do see how someone could have inferred that. I made the claim that, historically, leftests have been hostile to each of the ten amendments that compose the Bill of Rights, so we should not be surprised that they are hostile to the tenth amendment.

Nor did I ever make the claim that conservatives respect and defend the constitution either. I also never made the claim that I am a conservative - "I'll take poor assumptions for $800, Alex."[1]

I won't say anything else about the issue - It's already gone on too long. (If someone now wants to say, "Thank Goodness", or some similar comment... cheap shot.)

That's her point precisely. Go back under your bridge.

You made a sarcastic, inaccurate comment. Chairman Wiley's FCC codified the fairness doctrine. He was a Republican. The doctrine, in its various forms, has been supported and in turn rejected by both parties, based on the same ideologies and political expediencies.

Personally, as far as I'm concerned, the GOP mouthbreathers can have AM radio. It's not like anyone was using it.

The only story that is really surprising is the tree one... I'm having a hard time believing it...

The fact that the governor of Texas is a douche is not surprising, I just hope he doesn't have the quorum to actually go through with it...

... and who wouldn't be glad to know that the Afghan president came to his senses and decided to review that absolutely ridiculous, mind boggling and outrageous rape-law???