Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet 561
selil writes "A story popped up on the ChicagoBoyz Blog. It says 'Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is scheming to impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums — nothing.'"
The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Interesting)
Does politics bring in the idiots from the streets, or does politics create idiots from sane stock? Discuss!
far fetched? (Score:3, Interesting)
Trying to bail out Obama? (Score:1, Interesting)
Slashdot needs a no blog policy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Direct link to the letter in question (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgot to mention - any IT guys looking for work in the Washington, DC area should write to Mr. Capuano and tell him you know how to set up a video server. Seems this all started because the House has lousy IT.
Re:Anyone read the actual sources? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess to some people, anything left of Reagan is left wing. I've never had the impression Slashdot was in any way left wing. Slashdot is and always has been centrist/libertarian. Try mentioning that the government should raise taxes to cover more social programs and see how fast you get modded into oblivion. Or try saying we should seize the property of the rich and nationalize it. Left wing/communist my ass.
Re:hradek (Score:4, Interesting)
Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Conservative it doesn't matter who tells you what the corporate agenda is. The corporations are still in charge.
They are the "elite" the "haves" that like to make your decisions for you..or rather make your decisions for their profit.
Anyone that supports the current system of corporate rule are the enemy no matter what party they support. Most people won't believe this and that is why they are winning the class war. Unfortunately the bulk of people like to have someone else think for them which is why democracy won't solve this problem.
Techdirt article (Score:1, Interesting)
This actually looks like an attempt to loosen the restrictions on representatives. http://techdirt.com/articles/20080708/1602521624.shtml [techdirt.com]
Fable of the King Tree (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the fable from the bible.
When all of the trees were picking a king, they asked a fruit tree, but he said "I'm too busy making fruit"
They asked a shade tree, but he said "I'm too busy providing shelter for animals"
Then they asked the thorn bush and he said "Sure thing, jerks. I got nothing better to do" and with his newfound royalty, he promptly burned the other trees to cinders.
The efficient, productive members of society are too busy doing their jobs to devote their time to sit in endless, pointless council meetings, knock elbows with the fat stock, and climb a social-political ladder of vipers. We barely have time for our friends, much less coddling those who would so quickly turn on us as enemies. On a much smaller scale, take a look at typical office management. The man who [might know something but] can't do anything himself is the one in charge over everything.
Are there exceptions? Of course. It's hardly a rule if there are no exceptions.
tl;dr version:
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach? Politics!
Re:More proof... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fraud Alert: Slashvertisement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, if you read the PDF of the letter mentioned, it is about technical limitations of U.S. government support for internet access. The rules proposed seem very sensible. The letter says NOTHING about Nancy Pelosi.
Re:The Hen or The Egg (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to follow up (Score:5, Interesting)
I was genuinely interested in seeing if anyone could reference actions attributable to the fairness doctrine that effectively suppressed any point of view. According to the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], the Fairness Doctrine:
merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
It seems likely to allow broadcasters freedom to espouse any point of view they wish while simultaneously giving some access to minority or marginalized points of view, and I'm having trouble imagining how this would play out in such a way as to bury any point of view, conservative or otherwise.
But I'm aware the law of unintended consequences has an amazing reach, and it does say the Supreme court found it had a "chilling effect" on speech. I just don't understand the mechanism and am unfamiliar with any specific case, so I figured I'd *ask* for incidences where the Fairness Doctrine was abused to the suppression of conservative views.
Re:The democratic party in a nutshell: (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that the growing consensus is that neither party serves the interests of the average American, possibly due to the variety of information available on the internet, along with the more blatant corporatist leaning from the democrats we've seen over the last decade.
Seems that the time is right for a 3rd party to step up to the plate, but it would require a really charismatic candidate to pull it off.
Who's not a critical thinker? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fraud Alert: Slashvertisement? (Score:5, Interesting)
And here comes another another semiliterate. The same damn article you point me to explains that the Fairness Doctrine was created to target communism. Hmmmm...tell me again that it was created to target conservative viewpoints.
Re:The democratic party in a nutshell: (Score:5, Interesting)
Oooh, I know: Mr. Unelectable#1, Mr. Unelectable#2, and Mr. Unelectable#3!
Has it ever occurred to anyone else, that the "third" parties are a ploy by the two big parties to siphon-off people who demand change, into irrelevancy, so that the big-two aren't forced to change at all to accommodate these 'extremists'?
They seem to re-cycle the same nonsense. (Score:4, Interesting)
The East Valley Tribune?
They seem to re-cycle the same nonsense. Certainly Nancy Pelosi, who seems to have no technical knowledge whatsoever, may have said something she shouldn't. But there is no reason to believe that anyone is planning a sweeping change of the rules, and there is no reason to believe that anyone wants that.
The PDF of the letter mentioned in the Slashdot story talks about rules that seem reasonable, and seem to be close to the rules corporate America follows.
Re:The Hen or The Egg (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you kidding me, or just trolling?
The well thought-out amendments should be ignored in favor of quick-fix crap laws like we get today?
Go back to the authoritarian cesspool where you came from.
Re:Fraud Alert: Slashvertisement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who decides? So I'm a radio station. Throughout the day I have different hosts with different opinions, however none of them approve of Pres. Bush. So now I have to go find someone who does? How many hosts must I find so that every viewpoint on every controversial issue gets airtime?
It is censorship. If I want to stand on my soapbox all day long and the government says I can only do so from noon to 6, that's censorship.
Re:The democratic party in a nutshell: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know. I think both political parties in power are terrified of the internet. There has been an explosion of ideas and debate. Eventually the best ideas will be competing directly against mainstream television bias. The rise of Ron Paul, even to the extent he didn't win, is a *phenomenon*.
I think we will start seeing more and more people voting out of principle for third parties. Congressional approval ratings are at 9%. It's just a matter of time of working better choices onto the ballots. People vote for their guy only because they hate the other guy more.
I don't see any reason why the Libertarian Party can't get 25% of the vote without dismantling either the Democrats or the Republicans, just siphoning off from a compromise of civil and economic liberty. Every district is becoming more and more politically polarized through time. All you need is a couple Greens and a couple Libertarians to squeak into office to start a big tide toward voting in more of the sames. I think there is enough dissatisfaction that people like Kucinich and Paul can even attract votes from people on different political ends given run of the mill bad quality politicians.
If the mainstream parties weren't terrified of people like Ron Paul they wouldn't spend so much effort trying to marginalize and discredit them, but address their positions head on.
The internet is a New Age. There is no longer a two party funneling of two view points on mainstream media. More and more people are getting their news and opinion from the internet. And this is still just the wee beginning.
Re:Conservatives Censored by Fairness Doctrine (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixed your assertion for you.
Oh come on, we all know the liberal media claim is pure politics. It's part of a game of playing the victim so you don't have to be responsible. I expect you know this, and it'd be nice if you could be honest with yourself about it.
Re:Fraud Alert: Slashvertisement? (Score:3, Interesting)
Radio stations receive licenses to use the public's airwaves. At the time this licensing arrangement was set up the public was concerned that big corporations would only present a pro-corporate viewpoint, harmful to democracy. They said if you want to license the airwaves from us, you have to serve democracy by providing educational content, documentaries, news and other information including a VARIETY of opinions -- that serves democracy.
If you didn't like the public's terms, you didn't have to get a license to be a broadcaster. Instead, though, the corporations bought themselves a bunch of politicians and got the rules changed.
Re:The democratic party in a nutshell: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The democratic party in a nutshell: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh yea, the "liberal media" idiocy. Look, let me point out to you this rather easily verifiable fact: nearly all media in the USA is owned by hard-core right-winger billionaires, run by hard-core right-winger CEOs and hard-core right-winger board of directors and then somehow (probably by magic, due to all that Communist pixie dust spread by Rupert Murdoch) it scores "left of center"?! What "center"?!! By our standards here in Canada the Democrats are Center-right, the Republicans far-right. I am sure the "center" is even further right from the view of people in some European countries.
That "study" is a load of politically-motivated brain-washing psychological warfare donkey-dung, sponsored by people who believe Adolf Hitler was a "liberal", nothing more.