PBS generally runs only about 4 minutes per hour of advertising, versus 10 minutes per hour for commercial broadcasters (I think there is still some limit on this) and around 15 or 20 minutes per hour for cable channels.

PBS runs so many shows about beautiful unspoiled nature sponsored by big oil companies that it is often referred to as the “Petroleum Broadcasting System”.

The Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in 1969.

This comment is more of the intellectual flattening which Gore decries in the book, and he is right to imply that the Founding Fathers would have thought so too.

Functionally the Doctrine doesn’t prevent the media owner from speaking; it provides access to others to exercise the same right at the same decibel level. Lack of this access is one of the factors which has demoted reasoned debate in the U.S. democracy.

Byrne’s point about radio consolidation is perhaps a good one, but I also think MFB is right that there’s no point in shooting the messenger if he’s not running for office again.

Broadcast networks use the public spectrum. They are part of some of the largest corporations in the United States. All bar PBS carry advertising by other large corporations. Admittedly, the multi-channel environment has cut into the role of the network news, but those broadcasts still collectively draw a hefty chunk of viewers.

Your argument is somewhat parochial, though, given that plenty of CT readers come from countries that somehow manage to cope with restrictions on the broadcasting of political speech and oversight of the content of news broadcasts, particularly during election campaigns.

Posted by sd

Yes, countless channels, and the internet.

Tell ya what – I’ll take the frequencies of the biggest station in each major market. They shouldn’t mind, because they’ve got the internet.

Right?

What delusional doppleganger planet do they live on?

Sk

I’m quite willing to believe that Gore understates the extent to which the 1996 act contributed to the problem, but…geez. That act didn’t invent the Republican noise machine, or (for instance) contribute significantly to Whitewater coverage, or anything like that. It didn’t create the career of Karl Rove or others of his ilk. Etc etc.

I bet Jello Biafra remembers her too.

Rather, I mean, than taking his hypocrisy to justify undermining his support for good policies?

It’s not as if the people currently in charge are doing a vastly superior job to the one Gore did.

They’ve been around a LONG time. My guess is since a few years after the newspaper was invented…. A big tabloid publisher looked on the Spanish-American war in 1898 as HIS war, for good reason, because he’d ginned up the war fever, and looked forward to the even more copies that war would sell.

Why do so many people want to watch all that crap?

Because it’s about entertainment, not just about education. And it isn’t ALL crap anymore. Because it’s all niches now, some of those channels actually have thoughtful stuff. Is BookTV crap? Or Mythbusters?

Market competition mechanism is good for mass-production of cheap low-quality stuff for mass-consumption and that’s exactly what we get; if you want to organize mass-production of high-quality stuff – first kill the competition. Hence your NPR, your BBC, your PBS.

It never ceases to amaze me that liberals defend the Fairness Doctrine. I mean, have you thought through 2nd order effects at all? Calls to bring back the Fairness Doctrine began to bubble up when it became apparent that conservatives dominated talk radio. But bringing back the Fairness Doctrine means living in a world where the Bush administration gets to decide what is “balanced” for eight years. You like that answer? Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine means begging the question of why it should apply equally to websites. You want to see a demand for equal time on Dailykos?