Essay talk:Why the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea

Debate

I am trying to understand your point... Do you think that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like should be allowed on the radio. --CPAdmin1 12:54, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

• I don't see why not. The problem is that without the Fairness Doctrine, the idea of radio as a public service has gone by the boards and radio programming is driven almost entirely by ratings. Rage ratings look good on an Arbitron report, but without the Fairness Doctrine, that's the only consideration. By all means, keep Rush on the air. But for starters, balance him out with Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes. Even better, force him to be more professional about his work -- less lying about the opposition, more rational advocacy of his own positions. (Even better yet, less syndicated radio overall of any stripe and more local interest. But that might never happen.) Think of the current state of talk radio as a dog park without a pooper scooper requirement -- yes, dogs are going to crap on the grass. But who's going to go there if no one cleans up after it? Anyway, there's quite a bit more to write -- this is far from a finished product. EVDebs 13:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

So you think that WABC for example should have to give equal time to liberal talk show hosts? --CPAdmin1 13:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps not equal time, but at the very least allow them to speak for themselves without it looking like Susan Estrich/Alan Colmes-style tokenism. It's all a part of managing a limited resource. EVDebs 13:31, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

But they have their own stations, isn't that enough? Let people choose what they want to listen to. If they want to hear Rush, they will listen to him. If they want to hear the opposition, then they will find it somewhere else. --CPAdmin1 13:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Sounds good on paper. But what happens when the less insane voices are crowded out in the name of ratings? It's the equivalent of giving a kid a choice between a farmstand and a candy store for lunch. This is why strict non-interventionist policies in any market actually reduce competition -- they allow established players and big-money newbies to crowd out the underfunded, even if they provide a superior product, raising the barrier to entry and allowing the established players to slack off on quality and innovation. Look at Rush -- he's been coasting for years because the mainstream stations he appears on can't be bothered to develop in-house talent and because he's big enough to help marginalize smaller players like Air America, no matter what their merits. Air America could have been the best thing on talk radio (in my experience it wasn't bad, but could have been much better) and it still wouldn't have had a chance because the big players wouldn't let it out of the margins. EVDebs 13:55, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

If nobody is going to listen to it, than there is no purpose in being on the air. Forced equality probably would result in token opposition, which kind of defeats the purpose. Government control is almost always a bad idea. The fairness doctrine restricts the rights of everyone involved. It basically amounts to forced propaganda. While equal representation for all viewpoints may be desirable (I don't see you arguing for that in the case of intelligent design) it cannot be forced by the government. --CPAdmin1 14:10, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I would agree (though wouldn't phrase it quite so strongly) if, and only if, we were dealing with an unlimited resource like newspapers or the Internet. But we're not. As for ID, the ID movement has been evaluated repeatedly and failed at every turn, and is largely arguing its case in bad faith, trying to do end runs around scientific scrutiny and failing miserably. EVDebs 15:00, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

What does the limitedness of the resource have to do with it? --CPAdmin1 16:01, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Unlike printed media, there is only so much spectrum to go around. The Fairness Doctrine was one attempt to make sure that no one could crowd opinions off the air. Without it, that is exactly what has happened. EVDebs 16:37, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

The only reason for the success of conservative talk radio is that people tune in. You can't punish them for being popular. I must admit that I have no idea about how much liberal talk radio there is, but if it fails it is because people don't want to hear it, and if they don't want to hear it, then the fairness doctrine isn't going to help. If it fails under the current system, then it would have failed if there was an infinite spectrum. --CPAdmin1 16:44, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

You're forgetting what I said about established players and barriers to entry, not to mention the marketing power of FUD and appealing to peoples' prejudices. Conservative talk radio has both of those in spades. EVDebs 00:06, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

@CPadminone, I want to listen to LTR, but no stations near me reach me. So I do it on-line, and listen to ads for air conditioning contractors in Phoenix. ħuman 00:29, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

[undent](BTW, you're sort of helping me write the article with this conversation. I hope you won't be offended if I give you a subcredit, even though you and I probably don't agree on much of anything.) EVDebs 13:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I won't be offended. --CPAdmin1 14:10, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Legally

I'd written on this before - the fairness doctrine ain't coming back. Content regulation of the airwaves just ain't going to happen, unless the government buys out an airspace to make its own channel (BBC style, etc.).-caius (heckuva job!) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Which isn't to say that aspirationally it might not be a good idea. Although I don't think it is... I think there are problems with the broadcast media to be addressed by other, more creative means.-caius (heckuva job!)

Wow, do you and I actually agree for once? --CPAdmin1 14:18, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I think we do. Discourse in America is corrupted and in trouble, but I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is the way. Instituting question time for the President would be a nice start; and there are other options, too, but content regulation is historically noxious to the First Amendment, and for good reason.

CPA, I'm not as bad as Andy would have you believe :-)-caius (heckuva job!) 15:07, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Did I say you were bad? Just liberal. --CPAdmin1 15:59, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

...which is a CP proxy for bad. The real damning fallacy of Conservapedia, and the disservice it does to the rest of the world and its users, is in implying that liberals and conservatives don't overlap a lot, and share ground for agreement. I'm glad you can see that we're not that bad.-caius (heckuva job!) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Dude, I challenge you to find one page on CP which suggests that Liberals have any place in a proper Conservative society other than "target practice". --Gulik 01:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Some random hints for the Debster if he wants to use them

• Liberal talk radio
• Conservative talk radio
• Many part of the country are served by very few radio stations (when I was in Missouri, we could pick up only a handful).
• While television has bloomed in "bandwidth" and distribution due to cable (where it is available), radio is still stuck with the broadcast spectrum and no extra room to expand into (unless you count streams on the net, which is how I listen to Lib. talk radio, out of SFCA and Phoenix AZ, and sometimes Minniesoda).
• Large corporations are aggressively consolidating the market, further reducing the "bandwidth" by running the same programs on multiple stations.

The links are in case you want to use them, the ideas are free, and worth every penny! ħuman 17:03, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

The Fairness Doctrine in action

Just this day i got a taste of The Fairness Doctrine in action.

If i wish to edit the Libt article, i'm required to get it approved on the Talk Libt page, but no one needs to if they are anti-Libt.

Inevitably the The Fairness Doctrine will fall into the hands of people that see that kind of thing as "fair". It would be better to let there be a freemarketplace of ideas. The more govt control, the less fair. Suffice it to say, fairness in the eyes of a control freak is anything but fair.

I would like to address other aspects of your essay at another time.

-- Rem^Beau 21:00, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Rembrandt, if you hadn't gone out of your way to turn it into a pro-libertarian puff piece, there would be no issue at all. And yes, it's quite easy to abuse something like the Fairness doctrine. That does not make it inherently bad; it does mean it needs to be administered with very strong oversight. EVDebs 22:45, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Irony, supreme irony, that what he is criticising is what he wants. ħuman 23:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, you have it backwards, Rem. If the Fairness Doctrine applied to wikis, the managers of this site would be legally obligated to give you some space to espouse your views. But since the evil and unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine DOESN'T apply, the owners are free to exercise their God-given property-owning rights by gleefully squashing your every effort to defend yourself from their baseless slanders. :D --Gulik 01:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Well put, Gulik, that's "what I meant to say"!!! ħuman 01:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

It is amazing, just amazing, how much differently Liberals think as compared to Libertarians. The idea that i should be in favor of The Fairness Doctrine because it would FORCE RW to be fair to me -- wow. That is obviously how some of you think; others should be forced because YOU WANT something, Does NO one here think that is crazy and childish? (Serious question.)

If my appeals to fairness fall on deaf ears, so be it. I have options in a free society, and so do those that refuse my sense of fairness. If i can't stand the unfairness here, i can sulk and refuse to post, i can call names or hurl ad homs, i can tell the world how unfair you are, or i could quit this site and say something stinging like, "You won't have Rembrandt to kick around anymore" (Richard Nixon). Or i could be adult about it, not expect fairness in the future, and continue to post as before as long as i still derive satisfaction from it.

The one thing i couldn't possibly do is ask the govt to shut you down if you didn't meet my standard of fairness. Justification for that could only be a rationalization just to get what I want.

You guys "own" this site and can do what you want -- you have every right to ban me, or toss insults my way, given that this is a Liberal site with rules based on Liberal thinking, and i am not at all a Liberal. I come from a Libertarian group, and our moderator (he started the site) would have every right to insist that fairness should favor Libertarians, and if posters were too Liberal, he is within his right to ban them. (Funny to think about it, a Libt moderator showing intolerance -- he'd be laughed off the internet by other Libts, not to mention by Liberals and Conservatives yelling, "Hypocrite".)

-- Rem^Beau 20:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Debs -- You say, "it needs to be administered with very strong oversight".

There is a saying in Latin that translates to, "who will guard the guardians?" (I don't know the original, i never studied Latin -- does anybody know it?) Because of that problem, you would be well advised not to give govt any authority that it doesn't HAVE to have. The Fairness Doctrine falls in that category.

Nobody complained about the obvious hatchet job that was there before i added my text; you probably thought that was fair. You saw mine as a puff piece, i don't -- so how could govt decide what is fair? (Serious question.) I am truly, honestly baffled how any thinking person could have that kind of faith in govt.

-- Rem^Beau 21:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Persecution--it's what's for dinner!

And if you look closely, you'll note you're not banned. Mocked, yes, but not banned. And the things you write on talk pages don't get deleted, either. --Gulik 14:57, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Awww -- you insist on ignoring my point. Even if i were feeling "persecuted" (i'm not) and thought i was about to be banned (i'm not worried about that), i'm STILL making a point -- why not address it instead of choosing insults? It doesn't make me look bad, it just makes you look childish.

I respond to your points, why not tackle mine?

-- Rem^Beau 22:03, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

"why not address it instead of choosing insults? It doesn't make me look bad, it just makes you look childish." The red warning light on my irony meter flickered, but the new overload circuits protected it. ^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs}

Rem, I have to ask (as usual...) do you have any idea what the Fairness Doctrine was, how it worked, and when it ended? ħuman 01:34, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to shortnews.com:

// 06/28/2007 09:14 PM -- Key Democrats support reinstating the fairness doctrine, including Senator John Kerry, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Diane Feinstein (9D-Calif).

Kerry calls the doctrine the "most profound changes in the balance of the media." Kerry also states that conservatives have been able to "squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views."

The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to give reasonable opportunity for the airing of both sides of "issues of public importance." The doctrine was deemed unconstitutional in 1987 by the FCC. //

You actually didn't "have to ask", i would have accepted your posting of this -- these are your guys with presumably your views and no doubt your sense of what is fair. I'll accept 1987 as when it ended, does this now enable you to make your point?

I'm just guessing, but i expect they'll enlist Dick Cheney and guys of his ilk to administer the Fainess Doctine. That would serve to quell any suspicians that JK, DK, and DF, might use it to further Liberal goals. Am i close?

Certainly closing down FoxNews would restore neutrality to the TV, i'm sure they believe. Perhaps you do as well.

But in your other question (how?), i am very interested -- this may be where you make your point, explaining a scheme that, to any fair-minded person, would make sure the FD was applied in a fair and balanced manner. Don't keep me hanging on tenterhooks.

-- Rem^Beau 19:15, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Fox News would not be covered by the Fairness Doctrine since it falls outside FCC content regulations. In fact I can't see any sense in applying it to non-broadcast, non-free media -- as much as I'd like to see Fox News' propagandizing reined in, it's as much out of government control as HBO -- the allocation issues on a wired network are completely different, since it's not a shared medium and bandwidth can be easily expanded as necessary. (Satellite radio and TV, for technical reasons, probably could be subject to it, but it probably wouldn't happen because a) they're pay services and b) precedent is against it, as contentwise they're treated much the same as cable TV.) EVDebs 02:19, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Reply to Essay: On marketing and barriers to entry

// Allow me a free pass on Godwin for a moment; I swear this is legit.

Not legit, even tho you seem convinced it is.

You go from the Nazis thru the KKK to the Republican Party as if it were a straight line progression. This is exactly the kind of polemic for which Godwin's Law was invented, and does not deserve a free pass.

For one thing, it was the Republican party that for a period was the radically anti-racist group while almost EVERYBODY else was BLATANTLY racist.

For another you would be hardput to argue that modern Democrats have fewer fascistic characteristics than modern Republicans, to any significant degree. (Libertarians are most conscious of this, the philosophy based on anti-Fascism.)

A lot of the confusion on this issue comes from the Left-Right labeling. The L-R spectrum is often useful, i grant you, but on some issues it is merely arbitrary, and tends to shift unaccountably. Fascism is one of those issues.

Benito Mussolini's version of Fascism was originally, and for a long while, considered hard Left-wing (anti-clerical, for instance), and though his Fascist views barely changed, at some point the newsies starting dubbing it radical Right-wing.

What sense does it make, for example. to apply those labels to the nearly identical twins of Communism and Nazism? (The realities, not the rhetoric or the philosophies.) You can call one Left-wing Fascism and the other Right-wing Fascism, and sometimes it is useful to point these out, but the labels aren't particularly meaningful.

Armed with that knowledge, it seldom makes sense to invoke Godwin. I try to avoid using the word Fascist because it usually implies much more than the actual meaning.

-- Rem^Beau 05:34, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Um, he's comparing three different groups in three different periods. The modern GOP most certainly makes play with the racism issue, and with impugning their opponents' patriotism. The GOP has been solidly in the racist column since Nixon invented the Southern Strategy in response to the Civil Rights Acts. ħuman 14:37, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

• A few points. First, I have a big problem identifying Communism and Naziism as the same thing -- though both were totalitarian in practice, Soviet Communism was strongly collectivist and largely oligarchical in nature and only occasionally resorted to racist provocation (Stalin, a sociopathic autocrat who was a Communist in name only, was probably the worst perpetator, and is directly responsible for the current Ossetia crisis), while Naziism was essentially a corporate welfare state with a strong personality cult and racism at its very core. Really, only Stalin's rule could be considered in any way Fascist, due to his cult of personality and highly autocratic rule; oligarchy with a powerful figurehead was the rule through most of the rest of Soviet history. Second, defending the horrifyingly corrupt Republican party of the 21st century based on its civil rights record of over a century ago is bullshit of the highest order. Cosmopolitan magazine was a literary journal at one point; outside the "True Confession" section, I don't think you find much in there of literary merit these days. Finally, calling libertarians anti-Fascist is a bit myopic, given that the logical conclusion of a true libertarian society is feudalism of a sort, where many stakeholders are free to engage in any sort of fascism-in-the-small that they wish without interference from any outsiders. EVDebs 02:36, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Hear hear, well said. ħuman 02:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

// First, I have a big problem identifying Communism and Naziism as the same thing ...

I knew that you would, but at least you haven't claimed that only one of them is Fascist. Usually the urge to separate them is motivated by someone who sees himself as a Leftist and knows Nazism is considered to be on the Right and Communism on the Left. (Hmmm, i wonder if Naziism wouldn't be a better way to spell it.)

There are distinctions between them, naturally, but that is all they are -- no real differences. They are similar, even down to their preference for goose-stepping military parades, and even their "art" is indistinguishable. Big, broad strokes, usually of muscular working men and women looking beatific. I defy anyone to detect Nazi art from Commie art were the swastikas and hammer-and-sickle emblems to be removed.

A significant sameness (at least i consider it significant) in regard to ruthless Totalitarian rule, midnight raids on citizens, political prisoners, NO human rights considered, and piles and piles of bodies of their OWN citizens. The contrast of millions of bodies to hundreds of millions of bodies holds little significance for me, nor do i consider the racial/ethnic proportions of those slaughtered especially significant.

Some traits that long preceded modern Fascism don't really deserve the Fascist label. Among them are the inclination to go to war, to mistreat the enemies in a war, and racial/ethnic prejudice. (Have you noticed how folks consider their own prejudices as not being prejudices?)

Altho it doesn't quite qualify them as Fascists, partisans that lust to put their political enemies in jail make me cringe. It is a Fascist trait and should be widely condemned. And if you call me a wuss for that, i'll get very Godwin all over you.

-- Rem^Beau 08:46, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Communism as theory is NOT fascist, what has been put into practice (Soviet E Europe, China etc.) has turned into fascism because the elite have made it so. You mistake theory for practice. The communist regimes became fascist regimes because of the lack of viable checks & balances.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:15, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

The "sameness" you mention is by virtue of the fact that both Fascism and Soviet communism were totalitarian systems -- any successful totalitarian government is going to be equipped with a massive propaganda machine and prone to jailing and killing its opponents in some measure, Fascist or not. As for the racism issue, how could you not consider it significant? It was one of two defining factors of Naziism along with government-sponsored corporate hegemony. I mean, I think we can all agree that totalitarianism is a bad thing overall. But it's foolish to say all totalitarianism is Fascism in some form or another; Stalinism, Maoism, and Juche all have strong Fascist elements, for example, but they're all fundamentally collectivist (and Maoism and Juche add nationalist NIHism to the mix as well). Neither Naziism nor Mussolini's Fascism were collectivist in any meaningful sense. EVDebs 13:15, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

// As for the racism issue, how could you not consider it significant?

When it comes to Fascist regimes that kill a barely imaginable number of their OWN citizens, does it really matter that racism was a stronger factor in one as opposed to another?

// It was one of two defining factors of Naziism along with government-sponsored corporate hegemony.

Yes, racism was definitely a defining factor of Nazism, and it may not have played as big a role in the USSR, but it definitely DID play a role there. That hardly exonerates Communist regimes of the charge of Fascism.

// Neither Naziism nor Mussolini's Fascism were collectivist in any meaningful sense.

Wow. You really believe that?

"Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals." (Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher)

-- Rem^Beau 07:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

"Government-sponsored corporate hegemony" ... Not quite sure what you mean by that. If i had to pick another defining factor of Nazism, it would be eugenics.

-- Rem^Beau 07:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Eugenics applied to people, you mean. Selective breeding on animals and plants has been done for millenia. But yeah, I think the Nazis were the only regime that selectively bred people. Totnesmartin 08:36, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Not true. The US did it a great deal with slaves before the Civil War (as I'm sure did other nations involved in the slave trade, as well as small religious communities like Oneida), and many activists in the early 20th century (on both the right and left) wanted broad-based eugenics policies implemented, until WWII revealed just how bad an idea it was. EVDebs 15:14, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

The 'reality' of communism is that it hasn't happened yet. You could say, for example, 'there's not much of a difference between Nazism and Stalinism'. But please don't mislabel things, it's annoying. If Stalin called himself a classic liberal, it wouldn't make him one. Marx didn't exactly believe that revolution in an undeveloped country would work either way, unless revolution had already taken place in other, developed countries already. If it's like fascism, it's not socialism. It's definitely not communism. The 'actuality' of socialism is that there are many different theories of it, from Trotskyism to De Leonism, and saying that the 'realities' of socialism or communism are anything based on only Marxism-Leninism is asinine. And the opposite of fascism is certainly libertarianism, though not in the sense it's used today. That is, it's libertarian socialism. I don't agree with it, but that's the only ideology with a claim to being the complete opposite of fascism. You may now continue. </rant> -Judas Reward 08:49, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Rem, are you being intentionally obtuse about this? No, perhaps the difference doesn't matter too much to the person currently being killed. But the differences in the systems matter a great deal to diplomats and historians, as they have a great deal to do with a) methods and talking points for engaging such a regime and b) analyzing the motivations of those who created and sustained the regime. As for "government-sponsored corporate hegemony" -- Nazi Germany was a corporate welfare state of the most highly regimented form. To the extent that Hitler took his cues from anyone, it was the plutocrats with the money to keep the regime going. In return he granted companies such as IG Farben near-monopolies in their market sectors and actively encouraged foreign investment, even from enemy companies like IBM, and foreign support from right-wingers like Prescott Bush and the German-American Bund. Stalin, on the other hand, used corporate power as an excuse to kill pretty much anyone he didn't like and ran the USSR in a manner that can best be described as proto-Maoist, relying on espionage for technical innovation while publicly projecting a message of self-reliance and Soviet innovation. EVDebs 15:14, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

[unindent] // Rem, are you being intentionally obtuse about this?

That's a funny thing to say. I have the impression that your later posts express views that are not that far off from mine. Is it that you find obtuse this one opinion, "The contrast of millions of bodies to hundreds of millions of bodies holds little significance for me, nor do i consider the racial/ethnic proportions of those slaughtered especially significant"? Maybe just the second clause?

We may ultimately disagree on this point, fine, it falls in the area of opinion as opposed to fact, but i do definitely think that the thing that is TRULY significant about Fascist regimes is their willingness, nay lust, to slaughter tons upon tons of their OWN citizens. And that the other factors pale in comparison. That govts kill loads of those perceived as enemies in other countries has gone on from time immemorial, but their OWN citizens? That is truly monstrous, and overshadows other considerations.

// No, perhaps the difference doesn't matter too much to the person currently being killed. But the differences in the systems matter a great deal to diplomats and historians

To diplomats, sure, for all kinds of reasons -- i can see that. Historians have a different motivation. They are always on the lookout for actual differences AND distinguishing characteristics, else a lot of their narrative would be fairly dull. There would be a strong theme of sameness without those features.

And it is obviously true that anti-semitism was a strong motivation for Nazis -- that slaughtering mostly Jews sets them apart from other Fascist regimes. If school kids learn only one fact about Hitler and Nazism, that is it.

Everyone should be grateful that American Jews, especially, keep this fact in the public consciousness. Much great literature and many important films constantly remind us of the Nazi terror, and may the reminders continue, always, to make it hard to fade from our collective memory. The SHAME is that other ethnic groups have UTTERLY failed to leave as deep an impression on us, even tho they have equally horrid stories to tell.

Is anyone even aware of the slaughter and starvation of the "captive nations" of the USSR? Some maybe a tiny bit aware that Ukrainians were wholesale victims of the USSR, but few there are that are even aware of the rest. Were you?

Why is this, do you suppose? Can it be that Jewish storytellers are just far superior at writing poignant narrative? I am not aware that other ethnic groups have even tried. You shouldn't have to be a history major or read Solzhenitsyn to learn that the 20th century saw many Fascist regimes perpetrate a major assault on humanity. Or that murdering millions of people without regard to race, creed, color, ethnic group, etcetera does not make such regimes in any way less monstrous.

I refuse to believe this all boils down to the principle that it depends "on the eye of the beholder". We need to be alert to the traits these regimes have in common in order to prevent humanity from going down the same road again and again. Labels such as Left and Right in this context are as trivial and meaningless as: Hitler was a vegetarian, Stalin studied to be a priest, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. All they do is feed partisanship, ill feeling, and even hate.

Sorry my response was so long, but i don't like being misunderstood.

-- Rem^Beau 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Judas -- A rant? I don't know about that, but some of what you posted is obviously true.

// If Stalin called himself a classic liberal, it wouldn't make him one.

Well then why is it that Hitler is considered to be a Christian merely on the basis of calling himself one in political speeches? A double standard at work here, obviously.

// You could say, for example, 'there's not much of a difference between Nazism and Stalinism'.

Right. But you suggest the USSR was not Communist. How did it happen to be so widely labeled as Communist -- what is your theory? And what is Castro's Cuba if not Communist? And Mao Tse Tung's China?

// And the opposite of fascism is certainly libertarianism, though not in the sense it's used today.

What would be the prominent traits of Fascism and Libertarianism, as you define them, that would lead you to make that assertion?

How do you feel about the following?

“Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” (Robert A. Heinlein)

And this?

"The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’." (George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.)

According to your lexicon, was Orwell a Socialist, and at one time a Communist?

-- Rem^Beau 20:21, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Totnesmartin -- // Eugenics applied to people, you mean.

Hmm. I thought i knew what eugenics meant -- it turns out what i meant by it is only the secondary definition. This is it, from Wikipedia:

"Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H. G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger."

// But yeah, I think the Nazis were the only regime that selectively bred people.

That would mean Hitler should be added to the list above. I'm pretty sure Oliver Wendell Holmes was also an advocate of eugenics.

The Nazis were maybe the only regime that institutionalized it.

-- Rem^Beau 20:34, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

"On marketing and barriers to entry The Right argues that there is no market for liberal opinions on the radio. This may in fact be true'...." First point: To call mentioning Hitler/Goebbels diversionary, regarding a rule about propaganda/speech enacted in 1949 when the grass was still hardening over tens of thousands American's son's graves is...OK, nuff said on that. Ok, one more point on that:

"It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio.... It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio." -- Joseph Goebbels "Radio as the Eighth Great Power" 1933"

In 1949 America that belief was common knowledge. Meaning his radio power may have been over estimated by American lawmakers and public. Radio was in large part seen as how Hitler achieved his: "a rudimentary worship...that was almost mythological", "a semi-deity", "inspired the public," a right wing flag-waver who's "Führer worship also helped instill pride in Germany" ...status.

[1]

Second point: "The Right argues that there is no market for liberal opinions" So what. As seen above, Hitler had HUGE Arbitron ratings. Since when is public service or for that matter, ANYTHING of true and high value, rated according to feelsgoodism? That Righties can get away with that is a sad indicator of how low our values have fallen. And this is a HUGE point in this debate. Feelsgoodism is value???...is how public service content should be judged!?

Third point: marketing and barriers to entry A number of so-called "Air America" stations (actually usually mixed syndicators) had high Arbitron ratings but were canceled by various conservative forces. This includes Pheonix, Madison and here in Fresno. Germans in WWII could be shot for getting another viewpoint on the radio. But Americans here in Fresno don't have that choice. There is no other viewpoint on the radio. Here in Fresno, conservatives killed the Air America station. Arbitron ratings, KFPT air america, Fresno ranked 2ed best AM station in Fresno, killed: [2] The first best rated beat ALL the stations in Fresno. So even Righties god, feelsgood ratings do not stand up to even Righty values or promises. I don't see this addressed in the article.

Last point. This is not a free speech issue, it's public property rights issue. More specific, it's a public property rights grab, the public loses.

      Fairness Doctrine:  ===============quote Wikipedia:

Decisions of the United States Supreme Court

...Although similar laws had been called unconstitutional when 

applied to the press...Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:

   "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no 

constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."[1]

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

                         ===============end quote

"It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." IOW, we have implicit and real rights.

IOW, it's akin to a public property rights issue, not a free speech issue. Read it again, only slowly.

...Like when cattlemen and miners and campers or hunters or four-wheelers have a dispute over their shared public property rights in a National Forest. Public property rights are normally shared by many citizens, and in the case of broadcasters, cattle grazers, miners, loggers, etc, -- are governed by leases and liscense.

Current legislation working it's way thru congress to outlaw the Fairness Doctrine will essentially strip we American citizens of our public property rights on the airwaves, and hand them to the guys with bigger checkbooks than us.

--68.127.81.195 18:25, 6 March 2009 (EST)Doug Bashford   March 6, 2009

Insert non-formatted text here

An additional pushback

Okay, I know I said I was bowing out of this whole... ordeal, and I don't intend to stick around, AND I know I'm a bit late in the game here, but I wanted to run an additional idea past the author, knowing that most knee-jerk objections tend to betray a lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of radio and how it works. My main question is: Why would this not preclude media outlets from pursuing innovative ideas and approaches to political issues in favor of parroting pre-approved, tried and true canned talking points? A person hired to present the token conservative/liberal point of view would probably come under an intense amount of pressure not to do anything but toe the party line on any issue, lest their employer come under violation of the Fairness Doctrine. In short, why would this not simply reinforce the false dilemmas presented by the American political system's bipolar setup? DanH 05:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Goebbels' war crimes trial - WTF?!?

History buff here. Goebbels didn't have a war crimes trial, or at least didn't discuss anything at one. Why? Well, unless the Nuremberg prosecutors had a really good Ouija board, they'd have trouble getting in touch with the good doctor, seeing as he had killed himself (after he'd shot his wife whom he helped poison their six children) in the Führerbunker in April 1945. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he's thinking of some other Nazi. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the somewhat similar spelling, I thought it might be about Göring's (or Goering's). However, I'd be very cautious about taking old Hermann's words at face value, since he quite clearly tried to shift all the blame to the Hitler/Himmler/Goebbels trio. After all, he was trying to avoid the gallows (which in the end he managed - by taking cyanide before they had a chance to string him up). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)