General Discussion

Spike89

(1,569 posts)

17. "Public Airwaves" simply not what they were

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 06:27 PM

Jan 2012

It sounds great, but the reality is that not only has cable become a huge force (not under FCC regulations), but even "broadcasters" are often leasing bandwidth. The public airwaves argument has been weak for years and is almost totally gone now. With each of the traditional broadcasters heavily invested in the cable/satellite networks, it would do almost nothing but possibly force the move to 100% subscription television sooner than later.
Even if it were practical, censoring or even limiting conversation (yes, even stuff that is dreck) is the wrong approach. Better to make campaigns publicly financed, force advertisers to more clearly identify themselves, and get corporate money out of the equation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please Support Banning Political Commericals [View all] NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 OP

K&R !!! RKP5637 Jan 2012 #1

K&R ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #2

Ahhh...too many acronyms NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #3

can do K@r for ya backwoodsbob Jan 2012 #5

NGU = Never Give Up nt pinboy3niner Jan 2012 #7

Ah ha NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #14

Make them X-rated BeFree Jan 2012 #4

You would need a constitutional amendment. Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #6

Bingo! pinboy3niner Jan 2012 #9

Technically NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #10

but they have to have some compelling, competing reason unblock Jan 2012 #13

I'd go farther NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #20

+1 Scuba Jan 2012 #35

but the problem is not sufficient free speech, rather the lack of it unblock Jan 2012 #41

Great idea> Survivoreesta Jan 2012 #8

why not repeal then entire bill of rights while you're at it? unblock Jan 2012 #11

+1 cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #21

I don't think you're denying free speech at all NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #22

"Broadcasting is not speech" cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #26

The same way NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #32

i can't believe this is even a topic for debate. do you SERIOUSLY think our founders wanted that? unblock Jan 2012 #42

Do you think our founders imagined? NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #43

wow! twice in one hour you position yourself as adult/grownup and dismiss what i have to say. unblock Jan 2012 #44

A little irony there, don't you think? NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #45

Just the opposite for me blogslut Jan 2012 #12

What I don't like is the anonymity factor. lpbk2713 Jan 2012 #15

Either way, manage public airwaves for the benefit of the public. dougolat Jan 2012 #16

"Public Airwaves" simply not what they were Spike89 Jan 2012 #17

You seem to have forgotten about the First Amendment. GreenStormCloud Jan 2012 #18

How is this throwing away? NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #23

+1 ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #24

By your standard the government can censor newspapers. GreenStormCloud Jan 2012 #36

Political ads need to be regulated. RC Jan 2012 #19

I thought the same NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #29

If cigarette ads can be banned from TV treestar Jan 2012 #25

Politics is not considered commerce. cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #28

I'm not entirely sure NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #31

Even so - while we could say Congress can regulate interstate commerce treestar Jan 2012 #33

The cigarette companies didn't fight it. GreenStormCloud Jan 2012 #38

That would be true treestar Jan 2012 #39

The First Amendment is always frustrating to those who wish to limit free speech. tritsofme Jan 2012 #27

Here's a way to get money out of political campaigns Shankapotomus Jan 2012 #30

No. What a god awful and stupidly draconian idea. Stand and Fight Jan 2012 #34

let's eliminate 'citizens united' spanone Jan 2012 #37

First off, that would be unconstitutional. MineralMan Jan 2012 #40

Why we can't just enforce free and open commercials NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #46