Since I, along with most people, am feeling thrifty, I searched high and low for thrifty tips. Here are some of my favorite websites dedicated to saving a few more pennies.
http://www.thriftyfun.com
http://www.thrifty-living-tips.com/
http://thrifty.lifetips.com/
http://www.betterbudgeting.com/
You can find coupons online for a lot of your favorite grocery and drugstore purchases. From food to deodorant to razors http://print.coupons.com
Organize in a folder or envelope kept in your purse or car for easy access.
Of course we know that buying in bulk saves money. Several grocery stores sell in bulk or you can shop at a warehouse club. But this is not a savings if it is going to just sit in your pantry. Since I am a single person, I don't buy food in bulk, however I will buy toiletries like toothpaste and toilet paper in bulk.
Bakery outlets are a seldom-tapped resource. You can find savings on bread and all sorts of baked goods.
“But,” you say, “eating thrifty isn't always eating on the skinny. All the cheap foods are bad for you.” Well, the 99 cent Chef reports some cheap choices that help keep your svelte figure. All sell for under a dollar.
http://www.tiphero.com/tips_325_&lpid=16
Entertainment
Make use of your local library or buy books at used bookstores. Amazon has a “used' link. You can usually save a lot. Some sell for 99 cents. I never pay full price for books.
Hulu.com in place of cable. With 900 current prime time hits that you can watch whenever you want, paying for cable seems rather pointless. Plus you can stock up on used DVDs at your local Blockbuster which sell for 2 or 3 bucks.
Thrifty Vacations
•backpacking
•camping
•working vacations – popular in the UK during the 50s, when money was tight and people couldn't afford holidays, they would often spend two weeks picking hops on the farms in the south of England.
These sorts of vacations are still available today in many different parts of the world. You can pick fruit or grapes for wine, or do some sort of environmental project. All are great ways to explore our world and meet new people. http://www.frugal-living-tips.com
How fun would it be to go grape picking in France? I guarantee that you would become the envy of your friends, not to mention your enemies, if you took that trip.
If possible, travel off season when the rates are lower. You can often avoid a price increase if you
buy your airline tickets in advance
Be sure to arm yourself with a City or Entertainment Guide with a list of all the attractions as well as coupons for restaurants and amusements. http://www.entertainment.com
Health http://www.alwaysfrugal.com/frugal-living.html
One of the best ways to stay thrifty is to stay healthy. Being sick is very expensive. Exercise is extremely important and very easy to fit in to any schedule.
I don't have the discipline to exercise at home. Some do. The most frugal thing to do would be to find some second-hand exercise equipment at yard sales, Goodwill, and sales at sports stores, so you can work out at home. However some need the discipline of a class to get (and keep) an effective regimen going. Your local Y offers all sorts of classes and exercise equipment for a decent rate. Most will work with you on this.
If you are a self-motivator and can keep a consistent exercise program at home, walking, biking, and hiking are ideal. In these cases, a good bike may be a valuable investment.
I cannot recommend yoga enough. I take at the Y, but they also hold classes at community centers and
churches. It is a great stress reliever and really helps with your disposition in these tight times.
While we're talking exercise, I found this recipe on http://www.tightwad.com/tips5.htm for deodorant. I am not yet thrifty enough to actually use this tip. But for those who are, mix full strength household bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) with water or a water and liquid soap solution. (Never mix bleach with any chemicals containing ammonia, it produces a deadly chlorine gas!) After washing underarms with soap and water, soak a wash cloth and use a 1/32 ratio of bleach to water for cleaning, then air dry.
Decorating
As a former artist, I know framing can be expensive. It doesn't have to be though. A simple
frame hanger can cost at least $3.99. But the pop up top from soda cans can do the same thing, for
much cheaper. Simply remove the top by turning slightly until it pops off. Then attach to frame with
small screws or tiny nails.
As long as you don't need a custom size frame, often you can find cheaply framed prints at stores like
Family Dollar. You can toss the print and use the frame for your objet d'art.
Now that I've shared some of my thrifty secrets, I'd like to hear some of yours.
c.2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Family Guy in Color
"FOX picking up nine more episodes of our show is proof that an African-American can make it in this country. This is a milestone for the United States of America." Cleveland Brown.
Cleveland, the first spin-off from The Family Guy truly does have it all. I mean what more could you want from a sitcom “including love, rednecks and talking bears, oh my!”
Cleveland Brown is Peter Griffin's black neighbor on the family guy. Not only is he the president of the Quahog Chamber of Commerce, but he owns a deli called, Cleveland's Deli. He was a fluent auctioneer before he was hit in the head by a totem pole. This incident permanently slurred his speech, causing him to speak slower.
He gets along well with his white counterparts, and is considered the “responsible one.” However, being the “token black” in the neighborhood, he sometimes receives different treatment from the neighbors. For instance, in the episode “Stuck Together, Torn Apart,” the machinery in a police car labels him as a minority suspect. Another episode, titled “Blind Ambition,” he discusses with policeman Joe Swanson how black strangers should be viewed in white neighborhoods, like a black bowling ball amidst white bowling pins.
Cleveland was created by Cleveland, himself, aka Mike Henry and Rich Appel with help from Seth McFarland (creator of The Family Guy). Interestingly enough, Mike Henry is white and 72. The inspiration for the name was the Cleveland Browns.
Cleveland has officially left The Family Guy, but will occasionally drop by for guest appearances.
The spinoff is apparently expected to be a huge success, not unlike The Family Guy, which as become a $1 billion franchise. FOX already has it slated for 35 episodes (or 2 seasons). This contract will make Seth MacFarlane the highest paid television writer.
Cleveland loses both his wife, Loretta and his house (along with his beloved bathtub) in a messy divorce. Loretta has had an affair with Quagmire. Cleveland's response? “Better it be Quagmire than someone she could get a disease from.” So the submissive, clumsy divorcee makes strides with hyperactive son, Tiger Woods, er, Cleveland Jr., to California. However while passing through his hometown of Virginia, he meets up with an unrequited crush, who he made a promise to long ago. It seems her husband did her wrong and left her with two kids. Thrilled at this opportunity, Cleveland decides to stay there instead. This will set the scene for their new Brady-esqe family, which includes, the new wife, Donna, her 16-year-old daughter, Roberta, along with her 5-year-old son, Rallo, as well as a much fatter and less hyper Cleveland Jr.
The new family lives alongside a family of eastern anthropomorphic bears; voiced by author and syndicated columnist, Arianna Huffington and Seth MacFarlane, himself. His other next-door neighbors are the British Pennyapple family. McFarlane also does the voice of the father, Barrington Pennyapple. Across the street live a family of rednecks who don't mask their discomfort with black people. Another familiar voice will be, longtime fan of The Family Guy, Kanye West. He will be the voice of Kenny West, soccer rival of Cleveland Jr.
The premiere has Stewy bidding goodbye to the “chocolate people.” scheduled to premiere in 2009.
Is FOX is taking a huge chance committing two seasons to a spin-off, especially one that hasn't
been tested? Historically, spin-offs are tricky business. Hopefully Cleveland won't follow the patterns of Golden Palace, Flo, and The Ropers. Haven't heard of these? Exactly my point.
c. 2009
Cleveland, the first spin-off from The Family Guy truly does have it all. I mean what more could you want from a sitcom “including love, rednecks and talking bears, oh my!”
Cleveland Brown is Peter Griffin's black neighbor on the family guy. Not only is he the president of the Quahog Chamber of Commerce, but he owns a deli called, Cleveland's Deli. He was a fluent auctioneer before he was hit in the head by a totem pole. This incident permanently slurred his speech, causing him to speak slower.
He gets along well with his white counterparts, and is considered the “responsible one.” However, being the “token black” in the neighborhood, he sometimes receives different treatment from the neighbors. For instance, in the episode “Stuck Together, Torn Apart,” the machinery in a police car labels him as a minority suspect. Another episode, titled “Blind Ambition,” he discusses with policeman Joe Swanson how black strangers should be viewed in white neighborhoods, like a black bowling ball amidst white bowling pins.
Cleveland was created by Cleveland, himself, aka Mike Henry and Rich Appel with help from Seth McFarland (creator of The Family Guy). Interestingly enough, Mike Henry is white and 72. The inspiration for the name was the Cleveland Browns.
Cleveland has officially left The Family Guy, but will occasionally drop by for guest appearances.
The spinoff is apparently expected to be a huge success, not unlike The Family Guy, which as become a $1 billion franchise. FOX already has it slated for 35 episodes (or 2 seasons). This contract will make Seth MacFarlane the highest paid television writer.
Cleveland loses both his wife, Loretta and his house (along with his beloved bathtub) in a messy divorce. Loretta has had an affair with Quagmire. Cleveland's response? “Better it be Quagmire than someone she could get a disease from.” So the submissive, clumsy divorcee makes strides with hyperactive son, Tiger Woods, er, Cleveland Jr., to California. However while passing through his hometown of Virginia, he meets up with an unrequited crush, who he made a promise to long ago. It seems her husband did her wrong and left her with two kids. Thrilled at this opportunity, Cleveland decides to stay there instead. This will set the scene for their new Brady-esqe family, which includes, the new wife, Donna, her 16-year-old daughter, Roberta, along with her 5-year-old son, Rallo, as well as a much fatter and less hyper Cleveland Jr.
The new family lives alongside a family of eastern anthropomorphic bears; voiced by author and syndicated columnist, Arianna Huffington and Seth MacFarlane, himself. His other next-door neighbors are the British Pennyapple family. McFarlane also does the voice of the father, Barrington Pennyapple. Across the street live a family of rednecks who don't mask their discomfort with black people. Another familiar voice will be, longtime fan of The Family Guy, Kanye West. He will be the voice of Kenny West, soccer rival of Cleveland Jr.
The premiere has Stewy bidding goodbye to the “chocolate people.” scheduled to premiere in 2009.
Is FOX is taking a huge chance committing two seasons to a spin-off, especially one that hasn't
been tested? Historically, spin-offs are tricky business. Hopefully Cleveland won't follow the patterns of Golden Palace, Flo, and The Ropers. Haven't heard of these? Exactly my point.
c. 2009
Bravo: Gay TV
One thing that struck me as I was watching the Bravo network the other day was the overabundance of estrogen; both real and fabricated. According to Reuters, Bravo is one of the leading gay-friendly stations. Bravo, part of the NBC/Universal family, is known for it's both female and gay appeal. Fashion shows, and reality shows such as Top Chef, America's Top Model, Kathy Griffin's My Life on the D List, Inside the Actor's Studio, Make Me a Supermodel, Miami Social, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, all seem to have a gay element to them. If Lifetime is called “TV for women,” I think we can safely call Bravo, “TV for gays.”
The Fashion Show, is hosted by Isaac Mizrahi, where a collection of designers, both over-the-top women and extremely flamboyant men get together and have a “design-off,” as well as vie not to be the “design that greatly disappointed us this week.” In one of the competitions they are told to sketch a dress from memory. This checks their eye for detail, (because “being a designer is kind of like being a secret agent,” don'tcha know). Just like any other reality show, some contestants get voted off.
The blunt or “direct,” as she prefers, lesbian Tabitha Coffey's, Tabitha's Salon Takeover showcases her razor-sharp directions to motley salons' staff. After bringing one stylist to tears, she declares, coldly, “I hate tears. Why don't you channel all those tears and emotions into something productive....work.”
Lesbian, Jackie Warner hosts Work Out, a show that chronicles the life and drama of a Beverly Hills spa owner. The cast includes the trainers at her spa,”Sky Sport and Spa,” as well as Warner's lover, Mimi, who is a self-centered Brazilian She-Rah.
Of course there's Queer Eye For the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys transform an everyday shlub to sheer fabulousness.
Comedy Central even hosted a spoof on it called Straight Plan for the Gay Man, which featured four heterosexual men teaching gay men how to be straight, or “mannish,” redecorating their homes with neon beer signs and teaching them about sports.”
United States Congressman Barney Frank speaking to the New York Post commented on Queer Eye, saying, "The notion that gay men have a superior fashion sense is not true and it's damaging. It's perfectly possible to enjoy that show and say, look at those clever homosexuals. What they do with hair! And not support gays at all.".
On Top Chef, It seems food isn't the only thing holding the attention of the viewers. The restaurant's kitchen is the backdrop for a saucy soap opera. The chefs, both gay and straight, have 30 minutes to cook dishes complete with amuse-bouches, and refreshing palate cleansers, topped off with sexual innuendoes and double entendres.
The judges hold nothing back. One chef's dish, quoted judge, Steven “reminded me of the career of Elvis Presley. It started out great, but then died on the toilet.”
So, is gay TV really that odd an idea? It is not rare for other subcultures have a channel that is exclusively theirs. Some say that they, just as anyone would, want to have a voice; a representation. Others say that they are trying to push their agenda on all of us straight people, thus validating themselves. Some say that they are trying to make homosexuality seem “normal” or mainstream, turning the kettle water up a notch, so to speak.
I think whatever they are doing, for good or for bad, is working. I remember 20 years ago, gayness was very much in the broadcast closet. TV networks would never even think of putting a gay character on one of their shows (Jack Tripper, aside). An entire gay channel would have been out of the question.
Now, however, it seems we have surpassed mere acceptability. We are embracing it. Celebrating it, even. We are forced to revel in their flamboyancy. My question is, can we honestly say that we celebrate or feel an obligation to be “OK” with any other subculture as much as the homosexual culture?
c.2009
The Fashion Show, is hosted by Isaac Mizrahi, where a collection of designers, both over-the-top women and extremely flamboyant men get together and have a “design-off,” as well as vie not to be the “design that greatly disappointed us this week.” In one of the competitions they are told to sketch a dress from memory. This checks their eye for detail, (because “being a designer is kind of like being a secret agent,” don'tcha know). Just like any other reality show, some contestants get voted off.
The blunt or “direct,” as she prefers, lesbian Tabitha Coffey's, Tabitha's Salon Takeover showcases her razor-sharp directions to motley salons' staff. After bringing one stylist to tears, she declares, coldly, “I hate tears. Why don't you channel all those tears and emotions into something productive....work.”
Lesbian, Jackie Warner hosts Work Out, a show that chronicles the life and drama of a Beverly Hills spa owner. The cast includes the trainers at her spa,”Sky Sport and Spa,” as well as Warner's lover, Mimi, who is a self-centered Brazilian She-Rah.
Of course there's Queer Eye For the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys transform an everyday shlub to sheer fabulousness.
Comedy Central even hosted a spoof on it called Straight Plan for the Gay Man, which featured four heterosexual men teaching gay men how to be straight, or “mannish,” redecorating their homes with neon beer signs and teaching them about sports.”
United States Congressman Barney Frank speaking to the New York Post commented on Queer Eye, saying, "The notion that gay men have a superior fashion sense is not true and it's damaging. It's perfectly possible to enjoy that show and say, look at those clever homosexuals. What they do with hair! And not support gays at all.".
On Top Chef, It seems food isn't the only thing holding the attention of the viewers. The restaurant's kitchen is the backdrop for a saucy soap opera. The chefs, both gay and straight, have 30 minutes to cook dishes complete with amuse-bouches, and refreshing palate cleansers, topped off with sexual innuendoes and double entendres.
The judges hold nothing back. One chef's dish, quoted judge, Steven “reminded me of the career of Elvis Presley. It started out great, but then died on the toilet.”
So, is gay TV really that odd an idea? It is not rare for other subcultures have a channel that is exclusively theirs. Some say that they, just as anyone would, want to have a voice; a representation. Others say that they are trying to push their agenda on all of us straight people, thus validating themselves. Some say that they are trying to make homosexuality seem “normal” or mainstream, turning the kettle water up a notch, so to speak.
I think whatever they are doing, for good or for bad, is working. I remember 20 years ago, gayness was very much in the broadcast closet. TV networks would never even think of putting a gay character on one of their shows (Jack Tripper, aside). An entire gay channel would have been out of the question.
Now, however, it seems we have surpassed mere acceptability. We are embracing it. Celebrating it, even. We are forced to revel in their flamboyancy. My question is, can we honestly say that we celebrate or feel an obligation to be “OK” with any other subculture as much as the homosexual culture?
c.2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Fair or Foul?
Booke Musterman and Adam Martin
Controversy sells. Controversy diversifies. So why is the government shunning such a pillar of our social and economic freedom? Why must the government decide what is fair for us?
Not according to the Fairness Doctrine, which was introduced in 1949, and rescinded in 1988. Radio stations would be required to present both sides of controversial issues in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.
"Honest, equitable and balanced?" By whose standards? Who is in a position to mandate which opposing side gets equal time? Will we also be giving equal time to crooks and NAMBLA members?
Who decides what's "fair?" I wonder how quickly Liberal, er, Progressive stations will be to invoke the fairness doctrine for things like the Evolution/Intelligent design debate.
First of all, why in the world would we need anything close to the "Fairness Doctrine?' Doesn't every radio have an OFF switch? If you don't happen to like what is on the air, you are fully within your rights to turn it off.
Any Conservative, will tell you that the media is slanted leftward. Any Liberal, will tell you the opposite. There are several websites dedicated to the respective exposes of biased news. So if both are right, don't we already have a sort of equal time?
Adrian Cronauer, the inspiration for the 1987 Robin Williams film, Good Morning Vietnam, writes in his article, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, that radio stations would just not air controversial issues. This would allow less access to varied viewpoints. He says that the current ever-evolving, immediate access to media "is achieving the sort of diversity and access the Fairness Doctrine was designed to foster, but could never attain."
Steve Rendell of the Progressive media criticism group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, says in The Fairness Doctrine How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back, that the doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but just that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
So the opportunity for slanting and bias is still there. A Liberal host would be fully within the law spending 30 minutes presenting a shiny argument for his side, while getting a dull Conservative to spend 5 minutes on the opposing side.
Some say this is a purely Capitalist issue. Think of it this way, radio stations who air Rush Limbaugh's show are often very opposed to his caustic manner. But his ratings are so good that the advertising money potentially lost would be unimaginable.
When Sinclair Broadcasting was going to air the anti-Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor, the backlash from Liberals was huge. However, even when bombarded with complaints and calls to action, the FCC wouldn't prohibit the airing of the documentary. Eventually, Sinclair bowed to an advertising boycott threat.
Though the Fairness Doctrine no longer applies today, Congress passed Dick Durbin's amendment, which "calls on the FCC to 'encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.'"
Enforcement of the doctrine was extreme and controversial. The FCC could refuse to renew broadcasting licenses, upon violations. Station owners resented the fact that they, were the only media subject to this regulation.
Dick Morris seems to think that this will cause talk radio to be limited to the Internet. Of course, then the internet will be regulated, which will then limit Conservative talk to private conversations, then when they start policing those, it will be limited to mere thought, and then, in come the thought police. It's all so very 1984.
A source from the FCC told me, "Although the new doctrine would apply to broadcast television as well, the real target is AM radio.”
This is so suspicious. Why are they "targeting" AM radio. It would seem that they are directly trying to thwart Conservative talk. Think about it, when was the last time you heard someone crying for the Fairness Doctrine on generally Liberal slanted TV.
Why is the print media any different? According to Patrick Gibson, aka, The Evil Conservative, this is because radio is interactive. TV and print don't encourage dialogue. Even so. why should it be subject to differing broadcast regulations?
Why was the doctrine abolished? According to Adam Thierer, Director for Digital Media Freedom, "there were concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles."
Val E. Limburg, of The Museum of Broadcast Communications, concurs, saying, that the doctrine might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In 1987, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and that the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The doctrine was dissolved that year.
Backers of the doctrine claim that listeners have the right to hear all sides of controversial issues. They are afraid broadcasters would resort to partisan coverage of such issues. But it's not as if diverse opinions are silenced. We have an outlet for any and all sorts of opinions to be heard.
FCC Chairman, Kevin J. Martin says, "I see no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment, and believe that such a step would inhibit the robust discussion...over the nations airwaves."
I was able to interview Patrick Gibson, aka The Evil Conservative, host of WVOX's Evil Conservative Radio in New York. I wanted to find out exactly how Conservative talk would be affected by this.
Why does the FD only apply to radio? The FCC controls TV as well.
The fairness doctrine is designed to... make controversial programming burdensome for radio stations. Radio stations are the target because they carry talk radio, and the issue-oriented focus of talk radio offends liberals. Liberals love government and hate talk radio... so it's a hop, skip, and a jump from there to using government to attack talk radio.
How enforceable is the doctrine? It isn't....The Fairness Doctrine is almost European in its potential for silly and destructive unintended ramifications. Or maybe that's exactly what they intend. Who knows?
Isn't this a purely Capitalist issue? Liberal talk doesn't seem to sell as well as Conservative. It is from the side of free speech. For the authoritarian liberals it's a matter of morality. People should do as they are told and feel the way [the media] tells them to feel. They are viscerally offended by talk radio and its issue-based, in-depth content. They know that, in the arena of ideas and concepts, they can't compete....To the authoritarian liberal, there is something patently offensive about analyzing events through a constitutional lens.
How feasible is providing equal time to every issue? What about things like evolution/intelligent design? This isn't an agenda focused on free thought and expression at all. It is exactly the opposite. In all likelihood the govt would see evolution as scientific fact requiring no equal time for rebuttal... like global warming.
Don't we already have a sort of fairness doctrine with the accessibility of varied media? we have as much "fairness" in media as the government could or should provide. You see the variety on cable TV... while the regulated networks all preach off the same page. Contrast the diversity available in the same medium with and without regulation.
c. 2009
Controversy sells. Controversy diversifies. So why is the government shunning such a pillar of our social and economic freedom? Why must the government decide what is fair for us?
Not according to the Fairness Doctrine, which was introduced in 1949, and rescinded in 1988. Radio stations would be required to present both sides of controversial issues in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.
"Honest, equitable and balanced?" By whose standards? Who is in a position to mandate which opposing side gets equal time? Will we also be giving equal time to crooks and NAMBLA members?
Who decides what's "fair?" I wonder how quickly Liberal, er, Progressive stations will be to invoke the fairness doctrine for things like the Evolution/Intelligent design debate.
First of all, why in the world would we need anything close to the "Fairness Doctrine?' Doesn't every radio have an OFF switch? If you don't happen to like what is on the air, you are fully within your rights to turn it off.
Any Conservative, will tell you that the media is slanted leftward. Any Liberal, will tell you the opposite. There are several websites dedicated to the respective exposes of biased news. So if both are right, don't we already have a sort of equal time?
Adrian Cronauer, the inspiration for the 1987 Robin Williams film, Good Morning Vietnam, writes in his article, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, that radio stations would just not air controversial issues. This would allow less access to varied viewpoints. He says that the current ever-evolving, immediate access to media "is achieving the sort of diversity and access the Fairness Doctrine was designed to foster, but could never attain."
Steve Rendell of the Progressive media criticism group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, says in The Fairness Doctrine How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back, that the doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but just that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
So the opportunity for slanting and bias is still there. A Liberal host would be fully within the law spending 30 minutes presenting a shiny argument for his side, while getting a dull Conservative to spend 5 minutes on the opposing side.
Some say this is a purely Capitalist issue. Think of it this way, radio stations who air Rush Limbaugh's show are often very opposed to his caustic manner. But his ratings are so good that the advertising money potentially lost would be unimaginable.
When Sinclair Broadcasting was going to air the anti-Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor, the backlash from Liberals was huge. However, even when bombarded with complaints and calls to action, the FCC wouldn't prohibit the airing of the documentary. Eventually, Sinclair bowed to an advertising boycott threat.
Though the Fairness Doctrine no longer applies today, Congress passed Dick Durbin's amendment, which "calls on the FCC to 'encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.'"
Enforcement of the doctrine was extreme and controversial. The FCC could refuse to renew broadcasting licenses, upon violations. Station owners resented the fact that they, were the only media subject to this regulation.
Dick Morris seems to think that this will cause talk radio to be limited to the Internet. Of course, then the internet will be regulated, which will then limit Conservative talk to private conversations, then when they start policing those, it will be limited to mere thought, and then, in come the thought police. It's all so very 1984.
A source from the FCC told me, "Although the new doctrine would apply to broadcast television as well, the real target is AM radio.”
This is so suspicious. Why are they "targeting" AM radio. It would seem that they are directly trying to thwart Conservative talk. Think about it, when was the last time you heard someone crying for the Fairness Doctrine on generally Liberal slanted TV.
Why is the print media any different? According to Patrick Gibson, aka, The Evil Conservative, this is because radio is interactive. TV and print don't encourage dialogue. Even so. why should it be subject to differing broadcast regulations?
Why was the doctrine abolished? According to Adam Thierer, Director for Digital Media Freedom, "there were concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles."
Val E. Limburg, of The Museum of Broadcast Communications, concurs, saying, that the doctrine might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In 1987, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and that the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The doctrine was dissolved that year.
Backers of the doctrine claim that listeners have the right to hear all sides of controversial issues. They are afraid broadcasters would resort to partisan coverage of such issues. But it's not as if diverse opinions are silenced. We have an outlet for any and all sorts of opinions to be heard.
FCC Chairman, Kevin J. Martin says, "I see no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment, and believe that such a step would inhibit the robust discussion...over the nations airwaves."
I was able to interview Patrick Gibson, aka The Evil Conservative, host of WVOX's Evil Conservative Radio in New York. I wanted to find out exactly how Conservative talk would be affected by this.
Why does the FD only apply to radio? The FCC controls TV as well.
The fairness doctrine is designed to... make controversial programming burdensome for radio stations. Radio stations are the target because they carry talk radio, and the issue-oriented focus of talk radio offends liberals. Liberals love government and hate talk radio... so it's a hop, skip, and a jump from there to using government to attack talk radio.
How enforceable is the doctrine? It isn't....The Fairness Doctrine is almost European in its potential for silly and destructive unintended ramifications. Or maybe that's exactly what they intend. Who knows?
Isn't this a purely Capitalist issue? Liberal talk doesn't seem to sell as well as Conservative. It is from the side of free speech. For the authoritarian liberals it's a matter of morality. People should do as they are told and feel the way [the media] tells them to feel. They are viscerally offended by talk radio and its issue-based, in-depth content. They know that, in the arena of ideas and concepts, they can't compete....To the authoritarian liberal, there is something patently offensive about analyzing events through a constitutional lens.
How feasible is providing equal time to every issue? What about things like evolution/intelligent design? This isn't an agenda focused on free thought and expression at all. It is exactly the opposite. In all likelihood the govt would see evolution as scientific fact requiring no equal time for rebuttal... like global warming.
Don't we already have a sort of fairness doctrine with the accessibility of varied media? we have as much "fairness" in media as the government could or should provide. You see the variety on cable TV... while the regulated networks all preach off the same page. Contrast the diversity available in the same medium with and without regulation.
c. 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
