[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Jackass,Viacom&CBS

From: "Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>

> What scares me about the word is that if you accept that broadcasters have
> to meet someone else's standard of "responsibility," there can be legal
> consequences for not meeting that definition, i.e. law suits, loss of
> licenses, etc.

Wasn't this the way it has been for 60 years or so with little or no

The broadcasters was seen as a public trustee and charged with responsibly
using the publics airwaves in the public's interest.

B'casters were required to prove, substantiate and be held accountable that
the were operating in the public interest and not shirking their
responsibilities within the community.

If I understand your argument...if operated a radio station advocating
hatred against Jews, Blacks, Gays....that would be fine with you...as long
as he got a big market share.

What I'm pointing to is your extreme position (it's either one way or
another.)  Isn't there some reasonable middle ground here?  Or do we all
have to hold fast to an extreme ideology that may not always be
appropopriate to the circumstance.


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com