Comments on: All's Fair In Love and Talk Radio

By: February 23 roundup

February 23 roundup — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:14:01 +0000

[...] some of the same effects without using the name [Matt Lasar and Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica; Ken @ Popehat] Both FCC and Waxman's office deny report that Congressman met with staffers to promote new [...]

By: Grandy

Grandy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:52:39 +0000

Naked coed football would be inferior to football, so I don't know why it would get better ratings and more investment money than football.

By: Yogi

Yogi — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:03:22 +0000

Hey, Esther, that's great. Why not show the Playboy Channel or better all day on ABC? Or have you maybe forgotten the "conservative" backlash to the wardrobe malfunction? Despite what you seem to think, much of the regulation of TV is from a distinctly conservative POV. Except for the political end apparently. Ah, well, I think we should just allow anything on every airwave at all times, and charge the TV stations a stiff fee for using what belongs, after all, to the public. Then we could all just watch what we want, provided someone thought they could make a buck of us. And if no-one thought it would make money, then, WTF, don't show it. Given that news programs, in depth reporting, children's programs and the like are usually money losers, I look forward to the day when it's all porn, all the time, interspersed with car chases and MMA, punctuated by naked co-ed football. Esther and I will be at the forefront of support for that, I'm sure. Yogi's first law of investors: Investors are not rational. Yogi's 2nd law of investors: Every investor wants to beat the market, but has zero tolerance for risk Yogi's 3rd law of investors: Investors only invest in outdated ideas and concepts 9Buy high, sell low)

By: Esther

Esther — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:36:53 +0000

While I agree that the conservatives bemoan the liberal bias of the media, I don't think they have gone as far as suggesting there should be a law against it. On the contrary, they point out the bias and suggest the viewer/reader watch/read their content instead. It's only across the aisle that we see Democrats attempt to make it a crime. The solution is rather simple, if you don't agree, turn it off. Your "illiberal doctrine" should read illegal and unconstitutional.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:17:05 +0000

Just because there is a “market failure” does not mean that government intervention can make things better (even if government intervention was legitimate).

Travis, how would you define the market failure that leads to a liberal bias? In other words, how would you demonstrate that the liberal bias is the result of a flaw rather than a result of market forces?

Sorry, but although I agree that the Fairness Doctrine is appalling, the notion that the airwaves should be given away with no quid pro quo is equally suspect.

John, if I were inclined to agree with you, I'd still say that the quid pro quo cannot be content-based.

And the idea that TV stations will always follow the money is true only if you discount the idea that it takes investing first to find out if there is money to be made, and therefor there is not guarantee that any even handedness will obtain.

But if there is a market for conservative media speech, and no one is serving that market, then won't rational investors provide the starting capital, just as they would for any other underserved market?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:15:40 +0000

John, a guarantee that evenhandedness will obtain would apply to bandwidth as well, and to paper and ink. If you want to complain, complain that the FCC doesn't allow microbroadcasting, which would return radio to the weird and wooly world of the early 20th century or the few areas that have freeform radio, where you can hear almost anything. Fuck evenhandedness. "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend." Though Mao said that in order to draw out his critics for prison and execution, I'll endorse that beautiful thought as my own. You can quote me without fear, because I've never executed or imprisoned anybody.

By: John Beaty

John Beaty — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:09:06 +0000

Sorry, but although I agree that the Fairness Doctrine is appalling, the notion that the airwaves should be given away with no quid pro quo is equally suspect. And the idea that TV stations will always follow the money is true only if you discount the idea that it takes investing first to find out if there is money to be made, and therefor there is not guarantee that any even handedness will obtain.

By: TJIC

TJIC — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:08:35 +0000

I'm an example of a person who (a) thinks that the Fairness Doctrine is unacceptable; (b) think that there is liberal bias in the media.

Journalism is a tempting career choice for leftists.

I don't, however, want any government action to "fix" the liberal bias in the media.

Just because there is a "market failure" does not mean that government intervention can make things better (even if government intervention was legitimate).

Libertarianism is not utopian – it does not assert that everything is perfect under the market. It merely says that the results are better than the alternative.