Search This Site


Monday, March 5, 2007

In Which I Become Uncivil

I just got a "survey" (front for contribution) from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (although I'm not a member of the party - Independent - I'm on their radar because of support of the freshmen in the 110th.) In the section where I get to order the priorities of the Democratic Congress, I had to write in the revisiting of the Fairness Doctrine and taking a harder line on media mergers. For the love of all fucking things good and holy, what is more important than clearly informing the goddamned electorate? And Iraq? They had an Orwellian item having to do with setting a "new course." For fuck's sake, just get the hell out. We have no business sticking our greedy fingers into the region. OK, we've got business, I suppose, but that's no fucking excuse. I completely crossed out the securing America from threats of terrorism and commented "small time bullshit." Governments love those violent assholes, because they help deligitimize rational pushback from the people. Don't fall for it - so-called "terrorism" will naturally decline when they quit fucking around with subsidizing corporate greed. Sweet Jesus, I am pissed. (Breathe.)

Finally, the in the part where they asked for money, I pulled out my Sharpie and penned:

"Gave enough to Dems already (I'm Independent)"
"Maybe if you guys quit pussyfooting around, you'll get more"
"Yes - I am angry at the 110th"

There. That's better.


  1. Petro, I do a bit of consulting with the NAB on these issues. First, the so called "fairness doctrine" was deemed outdated in 1987 and that description is exponentially more true today with the explosion of cable, satellite and online media. The fairness doctrine was not fair at all in that it only applied to broadcasters and it led to less diversity of opinion and discussion of heated topics. Broadcasters preferred to avoid these issues rather than risk complaints that they hadn't covered all sides of a topic.

    Second, regarding media ownership, the rules need to be updated to reflect the changes and developments I mentioned. Alone, local broadcasters cannot compete with the large online outlets for advertising revenue they need to continue providing free local programming. By reforming the rules that shackle local broadcasters from experimenting with new formats and new approaches to local news, community radio and TV stations will be provided with expanded opportunities to tailor programming for individual tastes.

  2. Hi, Chris - thank you for contributing.

    I don't equate "unshackling" with "revenue." And I certainly welcome revisiting the Fairness Doctrine with the wisdom of the hindsight of the forty years that have passed with and without it in play.

    As I noted in the comments in response to Prestin in another post, I think the profit motive is secondary to the public service responsibilities of those who are licensed to use the publicly-owned airwaves. The other media are not part of the public trust, therefore I feel it is inappropriate to conflate them as the same thing and seek to level the playing field.

    I realize this is anti-capitalistic, but frankly those who wish to make a profit should stick with the private sector. I realize that this has never been fully realized in broadcasting, but corporate influence on the public's airwaves has really gotten out of hand of late.

    As I said there - there are plenty of opportunities in media for those who are profit-oriented. I just would like to see this tendency marginalized in the niche reserved for the public. There is more to life than money.


I welcome all reactions and points of view, so comments here are not moderated. Cheerfully "colorful" language is great. I'll even tolerate some ad hominem directed against me... each other, not so much. Racist or excessively abusive comments (or spam) will be deleted at my discretion.