This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Media already has equal time rules, so why do they need the Fairness Doctrine?
Definition of
The Fairness Doctrine
for those who do not know.
According to the wiki page you linked, Equal Time rules only apply to political candidates, where as the Fairness Doctrine related to all controversial topics.
Is that correct? If so, it pretty much answers the question you asked above.
It was more of a rhetorical question. I don't think we need The Fairness Doctrine. I can understand Equal Time when it pertains to political candidates running for office. But otherwise, if you don't like a shows opinion, change the channel. If you don't think you're getting both sides? Change the channel, open up YouTube, grab a Newspaper....etc. Regulating media is, in my opinion a step too far.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
such as the installation of Wifi on the Underground
Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Well, that's one benefit of the Olympics at any rate!
As for the Fairness Doctrine: don't think it's really that important. I think the US should declare the airwaves public property and switch to party political broadcasts though (as opposed to their current model of unlimited electioneering communications according to ability to spend).
Post by
Magician22773
For example, if I want to hear about the current situation in Greece/Syria/Scotland, I don't want to listen to a channel that just reiterates and reinforces my preconceptions
Then change the channel. That is what a free country allows you to do.
Again. If political talk shows cannot do this as a matter of course, it is their failure.
Conservative political talk radio is a huge success. Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck have millions of listeners daily, and companies will pay a premium to advertise to those listeners.
Liberals attempted to start their own talk radio network, called Air America. I was a huge failure. It did not generate listeners, therfore, it did not generate any ad revenue, so it failed. that is how a free market, capitalist society works.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
We have checks and balances.
Liberals have a major advantage in when it comes to TV. All the major networks, besides Fox, are left leaning.
Liberals also have NPR (National Public Radio). There are also a few liberal talk shows that do have enough of a following that they recieve some airtime. I mentioned Dennis Miller's show, and, to a lesser extent, you have Don Imus.
And, most importantly, liberals have the same opportunity, because we are a free society, to voice their message. No station is saying that they can't air it, or that they won't air it. But the public, that funds it by way of advertising revenue, does not support it, so it has failed when it was attempted.
The fairness doctrine would force privately owned radio stations to air content that was not funded, and that was wanted, or cut programming that was funded and was wanted. Since wasting valuable airtime on a program that would have no listeners or ad revenue would be a stupid business decision, the stations would likely change to a different format instead.
The doctrine cannot make people listen to the opposing opinion, it can only make stations air it. If I turn on my radio and find some liberal socialist spewing their idiotic views at me, I am going to say "that last lad was an idiot"....I am going to change the channel.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Media already has equal time rules, so why do they need the Fairness Doctrine?
Definition of
The Fairness Doctrine
for those who do not know.
According to the wiki page you linked, Equal Time rules only apply to political candidates, where as the Fairness Doctrine related to all controversial topics.
Is that correct? If so, it pretty much answers the question you asked above.
It was more of a rhetorical question. I don't think we need The Fairness Doctrine. I can understand Equal Time when it pertains to political candidates running for office. But otherwise, if you don't like a shows opinion, change the channel. If you don't think you're getting both sides? Change the channel, open up YouTube, grab a Newspaper....etc. Regulating media is, in my opinion a step too far.
Ah right. That makes sense.
So you are OK with events being reported in whichever slant the owners of the particular media outlet want to put on it?
Pretty much. I mean if I disagree or question what they are saying, it's not like they are the only news outlet.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Provided all news outlets don't end up owned by the same person(s).
In that case I guess you would be in favour of ownership limitation laws?
I'm not going to worry about that. New outlets form all the time.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#8: Should parents be allowed to read teens' text messages?
There is tons of debate on this. The parents feel it's a matter of protection, while the kids feel it is an invasion of privacy. Both cases can well be valid. In my opinion, if the child wants the privacy of not having their messages read, they need to be paying for their own phone. Which isn't all that unreasonable with the broad availability of pre-paid phones available. If the parent provides both the phone and pays the bill monthly, then yes I feel that the parent has every right to see anything on the phone.
I personally plan on getting my daughter a cell phone at the age of twelve when she enters middle school. It will be one I pay for and she will be told beforehand that I reserve the right at anytime to revoke the phone as well as read the text messages as I see fit. Leading into her 16th birthday I plan to give her to oppurtunity to purchase the phone from me, for a minimal price. Like $20. And inform her that she will be taking over the charges for her monthly usage. At this she will have two choices:
Pay the $20 and begin to pay her portion of the bill; no longer giving me the right to 'revoke' her phone. Or read her messages.
Decline buying the phone off me, I will continue to foot the bill and I will retain my rights to revoke/read as I see fit.**
This is reasonable to me because they will have the choice and they know the deal going in. Of course if I feel there is just cause than I will still take the phone. She will be told beforehand what types of just cause would warrant this. Such as illegal activity, drastic change in attitude and/or if I feel she is sexually active. That's me basically telling her, I will trust you and will not be AS intrusive... unless you give me reason to be. And I think that's fair.
**My mom did this with me. I chose to not buy the phone. But I respected her for the choice. She to my knowledge never read my messages anyways. I hardly see how she could as my phone was
always
with me. But she never asked for it or showed distrust.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
they know the deal going in
This, to me, applies implicitly to everything going on while you're living at home, not only when you explicitly negotiate the costs of a phone contract. My house, my rules, and all that.
As a parent, I have:
1) Control of the assets in my house that I paid for, including but not limited to internet and mobile phone plans, computers and phones, TVs, games, toys, chairs, food, etc.. Control includes being able to restrict access to those assets as and when I decide to, and having free access to those assets.
2) That's all I really need.
If I don't want to be criminally charged, I'm going to ensure that my child gets the food they need to avoid welfare issues. For all the rest, everything that they have to use that I paid for is at my discretion. If I get a laptop or a phone for my child to use, they'll know that they're using it at my discretion. This is entirely different from, say, a birthday present, which would be theirs to do as they see fit, as would anything they buy themselves (though I would have the last say as to whether they can keep X inside my house).
Whether I actually choose to enforce said restrictions, and read text messages, and look up internet histories and the like, that's an entirely different story. But as far as I'm concerned, legally, I'm allowed to as they're assets under my control and I have given no assurances of privacy, implicit or otherwise.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
FatalHeaven
Having said that, is it too cynical to think that the only teens that would have an issue with that, are the ones that actually had something to hide...?
I agree. If you have nothing to hide, prove it/show them. But if you have something to hide you're going to get defensive and throw a tantrum. That's how I see it anyways.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Squish, I agree. I never meant it was only to do with phones but left it at that as it was the topic of the day. I was raised under the very mentality of "my house/my rules." It never offended me. If I got caught doing something I shouldn't I knew it was my fault and I took the consequences and learned from it. Neither of my parents were violent people, they did the whole 'grounded' thing. And while these days it may not mean much. For me it meant my computer was taken out of my room, my tv was taken, my radio was taken etc. I was legit left with nothing but books. Not really a punishment for me since I liked to read but it did get boring at times. I think the last time I was grounded I was 13 or 14. I really wasn't the type to break rules or piss my mom off. Since I didn't get a cell phone til my 15th birthday, it was never an object my mom felt a need to read or take.
Post by
Ksero
I say no, parents shouldn't be able to read their kids text messages. Lets say your child isn't trying to hide something from you, they would still not want you to see potential texts from there boyfriend/girlfriend, that's stuff that is personal. As a parallel people 20-30 years ago didn't have cell phones while they were 12-18 years old, but they made phone calls to their boyfriends/girlfriends instead, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want their parents knowing what they said on the phone, even though their parents payed the phone bill.
Post by
Squishalot
As a parallel people 20-30 years ago didn't have cell phones while they were 12-18 years old, but they made phone calls to their boyfriends/girlfriends instead, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want their parents knowing what they said on the phone, even though their parents payed the phone bill.
As a parallel, the corded phone would've been out in the living room, within earshot. You still wouldn't have privacy under your parents' roof. Again, my house, my rules - if you want to use the phone, you use it in the living room so that we know if something dodgy is going on. After all, what do you have to hide in a conversation with your boyfriend/girlfriend that you wouldn't have to hide with a conversation with anybody else?
Post by
Ksero
As a parallel people 20-30 years ago didn't have cell phones while they were 12-18 years old, but they made phone calls to their boyfriends/girlfriends instead, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want their parents knowing what they said on the phone, even though their parents payed the phone bill.
As a parallel, the corded phone would've been out in the living room, within earshot. You still wouldn't have privacy under your parents' roof. Again, my house, my rules - if you want to use the phone, you use it in the living room so that we know if something dodgy is going on. After all, what do you have to hide in a conversation with your boyfriend/girlfriend that you wouldn't have to hide with a conversation with anybody else?
I know my mom as a teenager had a corded phone in her room, this was in the mid 70s. I'm not sure how your teenage love life was (nor do i want to know) but there are some things on the phone that i would just feel awkward saying if i knew my parents could hear, and im not meaning explicitly sexual things either.
EDIT: I should also point out that if you know your parents can read your messages you can either, use code they cant understand, delete any text you dont want them to see, or avoid using the phone for anything you dont want them to see. It's also a way to tell your kid you don't trust them.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.