Comments on: Fraudulant Fairness? http://northcarolinamountaindreams.com/369/fraudulant-fairness/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fraudulant-fairness North Carolina Mountain Dreams... Dreaming of the second half of my life...In the Blue Ridge Mountains. Wed, 16 May 2012 00:19:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: gary http://northcarolinamountaindreams.com/369/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-113 gary Sat, 05 May 2007 00:02:00 +0000 http://gwboydmove.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-113 Nolan, You are right...We will never agree on this issue. It is probably my inherent distrust of the "Corporate Citizen", even those in the broadcast industry.<br/><br/>But I enjoyed the discussion. Come by anytime you want to have a go at changing this old mind... Nolan, You are right…We will never agree on this issue. It is probably my inherent distrust of the “Corporate Citizen”, even those in the broadcast industry.

But I enjoyed the discussion. Come by anytime you want to have a go at changing this old mind…

]]> By: Nolan http://northcarolinamountaindreams.com/369/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-112 Nolan Fri, 04 May 2007 18:57:00 +0000 http://gwboydmove.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-112 Gary, apparently we will have to agree to disagree on the doctrine. IMO our local broadcasters understand that they must provide programming that meets the needs and wants of their viewers, including providing differing views on issues. A one size fits all regulation such as this isn't in the best interest of everyone. <br/><br/>Whether customized news is a good thing or not is an interesting question. You are probably right that people will seek out outlets that merely reinforce their preconceived views. This actually speaks to the problem of having a mandated "fairness" doctrine as everyone these days finds seems to scream bias at every single word spoken on TV or radio. <br/><br/>Also, you may find this interesting, I cited a piece by Adam Thierer in my first comment, and here is his most recent entry, part of an ongoing, series chronicling the deconsolidation trend. This time he details Clear Channels moves to sell of many of its TV and radio stations. <br/><br/>http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042338.php<br/><br/>Thanks and have a great weekend. Gary, apparently we will have to agree to disagree on the doctrine. IMO our local broadcasters understand that they must provide programming that meets the needs and wants of their viewers, including providing differing views on issues. A one size fits all regulation such as this isn’t in the best interest of everyone.

Whether customized news is a good thing or not is an interesting question. You are probably right that people will seek out outlets that merely reinforce their preconceived views. This actually speaks to the problem of having a mandated “fairness” doctrine as everyone these days finds seems to scream bias at every single word spoken on TV or radio.

Also, you may find this interesting, I cited a piece by Adam Thierer in my first comment, and here is his most recent entry, part of an ongoing, series chronicling the deconsolidation trend. This time he details Clear Channels moves to sell of many of its TV and radio stations.

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042338.php

Thanks and have a great weekend.

]]> By: gary http://northcarolinamountaindreams.com/369/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-111 gary Wed, 02 May 2007 21:58:00 +0000 http://gwboydmove.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-111 Nolan, I agree that there are probably wildly differing opinions on what constitutes "serving the public interest", which is why I feel having the "doctrine" codified works to every ones benefit in the long run.<br/><br/>I find I have to disagree with you on the broadcasters presenting unbiased news and their ability to differentiate what is opinion and what is news. I have never quite figured out what constitutes "fair and balanced" from News Corp. And though I've always none that The Wall Street Journals Editorial Board has a conservative bias, I've trusted the rest of the paper to present good investigative news stories. I have always found it amusing when the Editorial Board chooses to contradict their own news reporters. That is one reason I find the news from yesterday that News Corp wants to buy the Journal very disturbing. Real journalism is rapidly being lost around the country as more and more reporters are being replaced by pundits. <br/><br/>While I agree with you on the importance of online news, not every one in this country has the ability or the inclination to get their news online. Nor does everyone have the ability to know who online is presenting a news story and who is presenting a smear with no facts. <br/><br/>I personally am not sure that the custom tailored news is a good thing. Without the dialog of different ideas there is no chance for the general public to hear that dissenting view. I am afraid that is where we are heading, everyone listening to only the voices that parrot their own ideas. I already find myself going out of my way to avoid Fox News, I don't want to find myself avoiding all broadcast media because of the one sidedness of their view. Again, thanks for sharing your views. Nolan, I agree that there are probably wildly differing opinions on what constitutes “serving the public interest”, which is why I feel having the “doctrine” codified works to every ones benefit in the long run.

I find I have to disagree with you on the broadcasters presenting unbiased news and their ability to differentiate what is opinion and what is news. I have never quite figured out what constitutes “fair and balanced” from News Corp. And though I’ve always none that The Wall Street Journals Editorial Board has a conservative bias, I’ve trusted the rest of the paper to present good investigative news stories. I have always found it amusing when the Editorial Board chooses to contradict their own news reporters. That is one reason I find the news from yesterday that News Corp wants to buy the Journal very disturbing. Real journalism is rapidly being lost around the country as more and more reporters are being replaced by pundits.

While I agree with you on the importance of online news, not every one in this country has the ability or the inclination to get their news online. Nor does everyone have the ability to know who online is presenting a news story and who is presenting a smear with no facts.

I personally am not sure that the custom tailored news is a good thing. Without the dialog of different ideas there is no chance for the general public to hear that dissenting view. I am afraid that is where we are heading, everyone listening to only the voices that parrot their own ideas. I already find myself going out of my way to avoid Fox News, I don’t want to find myself avoiding all broadcast media because of the one sidedness of their view. Again, thanks for sharing your views.

]]> By: Nolan http://northcarolinamountaindreams.com/369/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-110 Nolan Wed, 02 May 2007 17:55:00 +0000 http://gwboydmove.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/fraudulant-fairness/#comment-110 Gary, likewise thanks for your reply. <br/><br/>I recognize and understand your argument differentiating broadcasters from "new media" outlets. Nobody is trying to change the perception that broadcasters serve the public interest although there may be differing opinions on how best to achieve this goal. <br/><br/>Also, IMO broadcasters, overall, present unbiased news and distinguish between news and opinion/commentary contributions. However, in reinstituting the "fairness doctrine" who decides that all sides of an issue are covered, as there can be many more than just two sides? This would result, as before, in broadcasters avoiding the more controversial topics. <br/><br/>I'll reiterate what I believe is the importance of online media. Today anyone can get their news custom tailored to their exact preferences, an option that wasn't available pre-1987 or even five years ago. For broadcasters to retain viewers/listeners they will have to continue providing high quality programming that appeals to their local audiences. Thus I don't believe the doctrine is needed. <br/><br/>Thanks. Gary, likewise thanks for your reply.

I recognize and understand your argument differentiating broadcasters from “new media” outlets. Nobody is trying to change the perception that broadcasters serve the public interest although there may be differing opinions on how best to achieve this goal.

Also, IMO broadcasters, overall, present unbiased news and distinguish between news and opinion/commentary contributions. However, in reinstituting the “fairness doctrine” who decides that all sides of an issue are covered, as there can be many more than just two sides? This would result, as before, in broadcasters avoiding the more controversial topics.

I’ll reiterate what I believe is the importance of online media. Today anyone can get their news custom tailored to their exact preferences, an option that wasn’t available pre-1987 or even five years ago. For broadcasters to retain viewers/listeners they will have to continue providing high quality programming that appeals to their local audiences. Thus I don’t believe the doctrine is needed.

Thanks.

]]>