Supe, you're missing the point. I don't care if NPR is left, right or neutral. They should not be taxpayer funded. There is a market for their content and they have a good sized audience. They do not need, nor should they ever receive, taxpayer funding. I don't know how Armstrong Williams's appearance a VNR for a gov't. agency can cause so much controversy about government-funded propaganda, when NPR and PBS get free passes.

How do you know what I think? Or where I think the center is?

A poll in 2004l showed 96% of television and news reporters voted for Gore. This is balanced?

I watch fox news, and they come down often against the Bush Administration - how often does the MSM support Bush? How many MSM shows have a Hannity/Colmes type show?

Besides, Fox can do whatever it wants. This is a free country and they are free to pursue whatever course they want in order to put faces in front of the tube - and they are hugely more successful than all of the other cables news outlets. And they are free to do so since they are not on the public dole - unlike PBS and NPR (Both of whom I will say again I enjoy for certain programming.)

All that said, you're kind of pompous claiming to know what I think...

Removal of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC during the Reagan years has opened the door for all that phoney negative advertising you see that the networks are making a fortune on. As well as opened the door to all those right wing commentator shows--which the left is just now beginning to counter.

The Fairness Doctrine said that any political view aired by a TV station had to be countered by an equal or opposing view. That's why so often you would see somebody countering a previous view aired by the network. It didn't work perfectly, because sometimes the countering view was broadcast at 5 AM.

But it did keep all the negative garbage off the air--where one candidate tries to carve up the face of his/her opponent with lies and deceptions. Bush Jr was particularly good at this in his presidential and governorship races. One of the roots of his credibility problems. Rove did the dirty work. These people have given conservatism a bad name it doesn't deserve, in my view.

The media can skew the tone of their venue any way they choose. Each one of us watches, reads, listens to whatever we are comfortable with. There is no wrong getting out of your comfort zone to listen to another side. What's wrong is when it is shouted down or labeled.

Our country was founded on free speech with the ability to speak your mind. We separate Church from State; The founding fathers insured this. We have survived as a country because of it not in spite of it. You can clearly see examples of suppressed speech and religion today. I'm glad I don't live there.

What I detest is a group; that want to shove, their values down my throat. I'll spit back every time.

Hmmmm. What does it then mean when wrestling is on the SCI-FI channel?

At least they have it half right. Hmmmm. Steroids. Maybe it is right for it to be there.

Is this an accurate depiction of a hypothetical application of the "fairness doctrine?"

The Govt should have the power to monitor the content of Fox News. Government regulators will watch all of their programs (O'Reilly, etc.) and rate the content as to where it falls on the political spectrum. If the government regulators believe that the programming presents too much opinion from the "right," they can force Fox to change their programming and be forced to include more people expressing opinions from the "left," up to the point where the government regulators think it's a "fair" balance of opinion being presented.

Correct?

To the,

I hope not

No, not exactly. The way I understand it, it's a programming balance issue, not a balance within a program thing. If you have a Bill O show, then you must have a Keith O show.... Balance in the lineup.

It's BS and requires a private company to air programming that costs them revenue.

OK, but it's the same concept. Government regulators will watch all of the shows on, say, CBS, and "rate" the overall content of the programming as to where it falls on the political spectrum. If these regulators believe there are too many programs with opinions from the "left," they can force CBS to remove some of them and put in some government approved programming from the "right."

And there are people who are on board with that concept? I assume the supporters are the right wing fascists who are always trying to abridge freedom of speech and give the government monitoring control over the free expression of opinions. Those bastards.

Again, we disagree. And it is a fundamental disagreement. Here, and previously, you make the opinion that all these decisions, programming, information distribution, etc., should be made with purely financial criteria in mind. I disagree.

Another difference is this. Folks who get their "information" from Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, etc., believe gubmit is "them." Government is not "them." Government is "us." If this were not true, we would not be living in a democracy and this discussion would be meaningless. The characterization of gubmit as "them" and villification of it for commercial purposes is unconscionable. Thank God (and government) for the presence of information sources that have "information" at the heart of the agenda instead of "sales."

Balanced between Superman and Rick? Oh dear--I think that one might wrap around the backside. The great circle route that doesn't come close to the center at all! :D

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I may be pompous, but I am not misinformed. I too have seen figures on the voting habits of professionals in the information industries. They, and common sense, disagree with the poll on which you are basing your assumptions.

You make me laugh out loud with the nonsense you post. Fox is not publicly funded, apples and oranges there, not a relevant comparison. What goes on NPR is not a "group decision" by any stretch of the imagination. You don't understand what they say explicitly, "My problem is that they are taxpayer funded," or show no evidence that you understand, then you presume to read their minds, "Your tastes, my friend, would conclude that 95% of the publications in the Western Hemisphere are wildly liberal." INcredible

You are so typical of the university educated liberal who knows so much better what is good for everyone else that you are practically a caricature. Thanks for the belly laugh buddy.

oh yeah, the fairness doctrine is the antithesis of fair

I'd be happy to respond, but there isn't much substance to which I might respond. As far as the whole liberal/conservative thing goes, part of my point is that what is "liberal" to one person might be "centrist" to another. Indeed, it is a brute fact that what is considered "centrist" in America is substantially "conservative" to nearly every Western Hemisphere society other than America. That's part of my point. Care to disagree?

The rest of your response is highly unclear, and I'm not going to guess whether you have a point to make and if so, what that might be.

If 96% of the fourth estate voted for Gore, one must ask the question "WHY?"

Aren't these the people that are among the best informad as to what is going on?

What did they know (or thought they knew) that the other 4% did not know?

There has to be a logical reason for the lopsided preference, and I would not think it was stupidity.

You assume that two equally well-informed people will automatically vote the same way.

Never assumed that. Was just wondering why it would be so lopsided. Granted, politics is overwhelmingly emotional; logic takes a far lower place at the table. But the question is still "why?"

I forget the details, but the political slant of those ENTERING journalism school is very left. They don't turn left based on the information, they turn the information left.

It's a vocation that draws those with a liberal bent, they want to change the world and all that:D

I'll venture a guess: Journalists are in the business of reporting change. Change is progressive. That's what they are subconsciously supporting. Of course, they don't mind the whole "intellectual elite" thing either, and they have to conform to get invited to the cocktail parties.

The big test of this: the war coverage. Note how many journalists and editors jumped on the bandwagon in direct conflict with their sleeve-worn bias.

I would argue that it is due to several reasons, where they got their education and how it influenced the way they form their opinions is probably the most important.

Superman, thanks again for just being you. Never change.