Fairness Doctrine..you Just Knew This Was Coming.

RJdxer · Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:06 pm

Radio stations will probably be under assault once again in 2009.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...-fair-and-balanced-2008-11-04.html

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

So Chuckie is comparing talk radio to pornography. If he wasn't such a threat it would be laughable.

I want the government to cut spending yet all the new administration and Congress want to do is raise taxes. Isn't that a little in consistent as well?

slider · Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:50 pm

And so the curtain goes up on total Marxism, state control and regulation of the non-prurient interest of the airwaves, before their messiah has even won.

Here we go. Time for the second American revolution.

Tugger · Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:57 pm

This nation's media is just fine as it is: No one is happy.

The freakin' "Right" complain its too liberal and the "Left" cries that its too mean to them.

Both sides, go jump in a lake and cool off. It is obviously perfect the way it is, stuff in the middle always pisses of both sides.

Tugg

StuckInCA · Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:02 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 1):
And so the curtain goes up on total Marxism, state control and regulation of the non-prurient interest of the airwaves, before their messiah has even won.

Here we go. Time for the second American revolution.

Damn man. Take a breath.

I don't see it happening. That said, your post implies that "the right" never pushes for regulation of media and that the left does.That is laughable at best. The Christian Right has had the FCC under their thumb for quite a while.

PPVRA · Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:42 am

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

That is horrible. How can anybody support this? That's regulating and/or mandating speech. Sickening.

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

This is why radio frequencies and what not should be sold and not licensed. Chavez decided to not renew the license of a major network that was one of his main critics. Goes to show how political meddling in things like free speech is dangerous.

[Edited 2008-11-04 16:51:10]

lowrider · Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:03 am

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
That’s not consistent.”

Dear Sen Schumer,
We are sorry Air America hasn't worked out like you hope. Maybe you can take some comfort in the fact that you still have NPR. If you think political comentary is equivalent to airing "Debbie Does Dallas", then you are either willfully blind and ignorant, or too stupid to hold your current position. The solution to either is the same. Good day.

PSA727 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:47 am

Because the Left can't compete with the Right in talk radio, they try to shut it down. I think
that if they try to pass this legislation, it will make them look incredibly partisen, and all
House members are up for re-election in 2 years. So hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
But if they do succeed, I'm sure that it will be challenged in the Supreme Court.

RJdxer · Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:02 am

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 6):
I think
that if they try to pass this legislation, it will make them look incredibly partisen,

The problem is that they don't have to pass legislation, all it takes is a mandate from the FCC.

sv7887 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:19 am

Anyway someone can sue to the Supreme Court to get this kind of thing stopped?

L-188 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:21 am

Who couldn't see Obama's assault on the first amendment comming.

He doesn't care about fair speech, he as the rest of the democrats only care about putting their propaganda of hate.

Funny how they don't seem to want to put the same limits on network news and print media which has been very left wing in the coverage to the point of advocating to the extreme left...See Keith Oberman.

RJdxer · Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:22 am

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 8):
Anyway someone can sue to the Supreme Court to get this kind of thing stopped?

Nope. The airwaves belong to the "people" by which they mean the "government". That is why all terrestial radio stations operate under license from the government instead of owning the frequency outright.

johnboy · Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:23 am

I love the smell of desperation from the right.

Especially when it's mixed with bitterness and cheap gin.

johnboy · Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:01 am

Congratulations, President Barack Hussein Obama!

Now let's get to work!

RJdxer · Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:49 am

Quoting Johnboy (Reply 11):
I love the smell of desperation from the right.

You'll love it even more when your speech is sqelched. The democratic party has always maintained if they got back into power they were going to make certain that the right was buried and not heard from again. Of course that was in '94 before the internet became so big and satellite radio became a reality so it will be interesting to see how they clamp down.

DocLightning · Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:15 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
The democratic party has always maintained if they got back into power they were going to make certain that the right was buried and not heard from again.

You mean like Carl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority" plan?

If people don't like it, then at the next election, they can vote the democrats out of power.

EA CO AS · Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:18 am

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine will come back, because - as some Democrats have said - "let the right have talk radio - we've got the internet!"

And they're correct, of course - left-leaning bloggers outnumber and out-organize the right by a staggering margin and it's doubtful the new Administration will take on the Fairness Doctrine because they know that true "fairness" would mean reining in some of their online support system.

RJdxer · Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:35 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
You mean like Carl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority" plan?

Which they never tried to enforce by trying to restrict political discourse on the radio.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
If people don't like it, then at the next election, they can vote the democrats out of power.

Not if the media message is controlled even more so than it was this time.

FruteBrute · Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:51 pm

LMAO! It's hilarious to hear the right wing radicals scream about the Constitution after they've spent the last 8 years shredding it and then politicizing government offices that have never been made partisan in our history. Unreal. LOL

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:42 pm

I thought the Fairness Doctrine had something to do with Rush getting a $400 million contract when every other on-air personality is making a pittance in comparison. I'll take Howard Stern's parade of porn stars playing with sex toys on-air over that any day. As far as right wing radio, Michael Savage is infinitely more entertaining than Rush. Even so, the big guy gets the biggest paycheck the world has ever known in radio - totally unfair.

slider · Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:58 pm

Once again, ya’ll are ALL out in the cold. I love the usual partisan sniping, while Rome burns. Don’t you all understand that freedom of speech is under attack? That means that while that knife may cut into right wing talk radio, that knife can then cut on the other edge at the whim of whoever holds power. That’s to ALL of our detriment!

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 3):
Damn man. Take a breath.

I don't see it happening. That said, your post implies that "the right" never pushes for regulation of media and that the left does.That is laughable at best. The Christian Right has had the FCC under their thumb for quite a while.

OK, Chuck Schumer. Hey, equating porn and talk radio is insanity. Absolutely insane. What regs from the FCC do you think are inappropriate or unacceptable? If anything, the line has been pushed back more over the past 8 years, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction notwithstanding, but across cable and any broadcast medium (satellite radio, cable TV, internet) the regulation of free speech and any measures to check it have been REDUCED. So if you want to throw darts about this “Christian right” then I would kindly ask you substantiate your position here.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9):
Who couldn't see Obama's assault on the first amendment comming.

True enough. After all, when a few TV stations had the unmitigated gall to actually, gasp, challenge Biden about their economic plan and utter the word socialist and Marxist, they were blacklisted. Cut off completely. Same thing with reporters on the press plane with Obama. And then Joe the Plumber infamously dared to ask a candidate a question and the government goons started tearing into his life, background and activity left and right. Spooky.

Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 17):
LMAO! It's hilarious to hear the right wing radicals scream about the Constitution after they've spent the last 8 years shredding it and then politicizing government offices that have never been made partisan in our history. Unreal. LOL

To that end, you are somewhat correct. One more reason for my opening statement above. It was Jorge Bush whose Patriot Act will be ultimately used against our own citizens. He helped pave the way for Obama to expand government power, push further into the depths of citizens, squelch and regulate free speech, take away privacy rights, and so forth. It is a brave new world. And that’s the frightening thing.

Dreadnought · Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:47 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
Even so, the big guy gets the biggest paycheck the world has ever known in radio - totally unfair.

It is absolutely fair if radio stations are willing to pay $400 mill for Rush and not anyone else. The value of anything is what people are willing to pay for it.

The purpose of the first amendment was not to allow porn or gossip mags or whatever, although they are accidental beneficiaries of it. The first amendment was meant to protect the ability of anyone to challenge publicly the government via the media. Everything else was secondary.

AirCop · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:31 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 7):
all it takes is a mandate from the FCC.

And that isn't happening soon, unless some FCC commissioners resign:
Kevin Martin, Michael Copps, and Robert McDowell terms all expire in 2011
Deborah Tate term ends in 2012, and Jonathan Adelstein term ends in 12/2009.

DocLightning · Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:55 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 19):
After all, when a few TV stations had the unmitigated gall to actually, gasp, challenge Biden about their economic plan and utter the word socialist and Marxist, they were blacklisted. Cut off completely. Same thing with reporters on the press plane with Obama.

Facts, please?

Because I know the facts but you made the accusation, so now I want to see your version of the so-called "facts."

I know for a fact that none of the people kicked off the Obama plane felt it had anything to do with their organization's endorsement or non-endorsement.

slider · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:21 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
Facts, please?

Because I know the facts but you made the accusation, so now I want to see your version of the so-called "facts."

I know for a fact that none of the people kicked off the Obama plane felt it had anything to do with their organization's endorsement or non-endorsement.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-times-kicked-obama-plane-finale/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/p...ccain-press-kicked-off-obama-plane

Your smarminess is almost unparalleled.

Point stands.

Disagree with the New Boss and you might get burned. Now he'll have the power of the Federal government to wield at his disposal indiscriminately.

RJdxer · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:43 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
I'll take Howard Stern's parade of porn stars playing with sex toys on-air over that any day.

You'll be able to, he broadcasts via satellite which is immune from the fairness doctrine.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
Michael Savage is infinitely more entertaining than Rush.

Even as a conservative I find his lines of thinking revolting.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 21):
And that isn't happening soon, unless some FCC commissioners resign:
Kevin Martin, Michael Copps, and Robert McDowell terms all expire in 2011
Deborah Tate term ends in 2012, and Jonathan Adelstein term ends in 12/2009.

The FCC operates under the Executive branch. The President can sign an executive order re-introducing the fairness doctrine at any time. Congress can bring pressure to bear via the budget process. You don't need new commissioners the ones that are there will either do the job they told or resign in protest.

AirCop · Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:57 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 24):
The FCC operates under the Executive branch.

I think you're wrong, but whatever..
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

About the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

RJdxer · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:16 pm

Quoting AirCop (Reply 25):
About the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency.

http://www.digitalbroadcasting.com/a...oners-nominated-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO

FCC Commissioners nominated
April 9, 2001
President Bush has sent three nominations for FCC commissioners to Congress, to replace three open seats at the Commission.
If approved the three nominees would replace retiring commissioners Susan Ness and Harold Furchtgott-Roth and the seat vacated by Chairman Michael Powell. Commissioner Gloria Tristani has indicated she plans to remain at the Commission for the time being.

Congress can also tie legislation to the Fairness doctrine. It has already been tried twice and shot down under threat of veto by Presidents Reagan and Bush41.

PHLBOS · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:20 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 19):
After all, when a few TV stations had the unmitigated gall to actually, gasp, challenge Biden about their economic plan and utter the word socialist and Marxist, they were blacklisted.

For those that may not know, the TV stations in question were WLTV in Orlando, FL regarding an interview w/Biden that took place on October 20 and KYW in Philadelphia regarding an earlier interview on October 15.

Oct. 20 WLTV (Orlando) interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxT0ELP7az0

Oct. 15 KYW (Philadelphia) interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGNCj0f2GRA

Note: No Tag notices prevent me from doing embedded YouTube posts for the above. At least I'm now able to post links once again.

[Edited 2008-11-05 14:24:37]

seb146 · Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:37 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 3):
The Christian Right has had the FCC under their thumb for quite a while.

Ummm... Wasn't it Regan who signed the Fairness Doctrine? And, didn't Clinton open up liscencing of radio stations? IIRC, right wing and conservative hate radio really took off under Clinton.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9):
he as the rest of the democrats only care about putting their propaganda of hate.

"You're either with us or you are with the terrorists..." Oh, yeah... that was someone on the left who said that. "Only one man and one woman are allowed to be a family..." Oh, yeah... that was the left saying that. I forgot.

What I understand of the Fairness Doctrine is: if there is 3 hours of conservatives, there has to be 3 hours of liberals. What is wrong with that? Listening to Rush ranting about the left, then listening to Ed Schultz talk about all the good the left is doing.

I actually forced myself to listen to Rush this morning. All he did was (as usual) talk about how horrible the left is. He never says anything good about his own party. I have heard Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, all "left wing" radio hosts say both good and bad things about the Dems and Republicans. All I ever seem to hear out of "right wing" hosts is hate towards the Dems. I think that is really why these "hosts" are so popular.

EA CO AS · Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:50 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
What I understand of the Fairness Doctrine is: if there is 3 hours of conservatives, there has to be 3 hours of liberals. What is wrong with that?

It interferes with the owners of radio stations making the most profitable use of their property - conservative talk radio commands a far larger audience and ratings than liberal radio does, and therefore commands higher demand and premiums for ads.

Re-visiting the Fairness Doctrine would mean you'd be legally requiring 3 hours of low-profit airtime to counterbalance 3 hours of high-profit airtime, depriving radio station owners from making as much money with their property.

And again, the liberals command the blogosphere. Would you require half the liberal blogs shut down in favor of allowing "fairness" to conservative bloggers?

Dreadnought · Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:06 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
Ummm... Wasn't it Regan who signed the Fairness Doctrine? And, didn't Clinton open up liscencing of radio stations? IIRC, right wing and conservative hate radio really took off under Clinton.

No. The Fairness Doctrine came into effect in 1949 as a general policy, and was made an absolute FCC rule in 1967. It was repealed in 1985 under Reagan.

RJdxer · Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:15 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
Ummm... Wasn't it Regan who signed the Fairness Doctrine? And, didn't Clinton open up liscencing of radio stations?

Not sure where you are going with that. As stated the fairness doctrine was repealed under Reagan. The Clinton administration was the first administration to adopt "user" fees for broadcasters. If you microwaved your signal to the transmitter, no longer did you just get a license for that micowave transmitter, you had to pay a user fee to transmitt.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 29):
Re-visiting the Fairness Doctrine would mean you'd be legally requiring 3 hours of low-profit airtime to counterbalance 3 hours of high-profit airtime, depriving radio station owners from making as much money with their property.

It's much worse than that. Those 3 hours have to be of equal time so if Rush is on noon to 3 on Monday, Tuesday noon to 3 has to be devoted to someone like Alan Coombs.

lowrider · Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:15 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 29):
Would you require half the liberal blogs shut down in favor of allowing "fairness" to conservative bloggers?

I don't think this would happen as blogs are outside the FCC's jurisdiction. If you tried, bloggers could just move to servers located outside the US.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
I actually forced myself to listen to Rush this morning. All he did was (as usual) talk about how horrible the left is. He never says anything good about his own party

These statements are somewhat at odds with each other. Are you going to to generalized decades of radio programs from this sample? Further, the Republican party is in shambles right now. I hope it will drive frustrated voters to third party alternatives and make them viable options.

slider · Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:08 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
No. The Fairness Doctrine came into effect in 1949 as a general policy, and was made an absolute FCC rule in 1967. It was repealed in 1985 under Reagan.

And look at the amazing results…

There was discussion of disbanding the AM radio frequency even. It was a DEAD format. There was Paul Harvey and well, um, yeah, that’s about it on any large scale. Then came Limbaugh.

And with the advent of talk radio as we now recognize it, came the influx of advertisers that were drawn to it, the money that followed, and the economic bump too…think of how many products were launched via talk radio.

The rising tide raised all ships. The liberals went crying to their momma.

seb146 · Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:41 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 32):
Are you going to to generalized decades of radio programs from this sample?

That is what I have been hearing over the past year or so; Rush talks about how horrible the liberals are no matter what day it is. Very rarely does he talk about the positives of being conservative.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 31):
As stated the fairness doctrine was repealed under Reagan. The Clinton administration was the first administration to adopt "user" fees for broadcasters. If you microwaved your signal to the transmitter, no longer did you just get a license for that micowave transmitter, you had to pay a user fee to transmitt

I was not sure about the Regan connection. Thank you for the clarification. However, didn't Clinton do something else like drop the limitations on how many stations one company can own or something similar?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 29):
the liberals command the blogosphere. Would you require half the liberal blogs shut down in favor of allowing "fairness" to conservative bloggers?

That is different. No one is forcing anyone to click on blogs. I never do. If I want information, I look at actual news websites. However, with blogs, people choose to click on blogs and blogs are not, generally, paid and broadcast the way Rush or Randi Rhodes are.

Having worked in radio, I take exception with some of these comments. Radio DJs are a dying breed because the smaller market stations are automated. When I worked at KUMA in Pendleton, the FM station bought a reel-to-reel machine and that eliminated the need for all the "real" people. After 6PM, it was just me making sure two stations kept the programming on the air. Our owner was still saving money to completely automate the AM station as well. Many stations are doing this. His name escapes me at the moment, but one man came along, who already owned the other two stations in Pendleton, and bought ours, upgraded all the equipment and put all four stations in the same building. He and people like him would stand to lose a lot of money. It seems, to me, the new mantra of the right is bottom line and not getting real information to the people.

RJdxer · Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:57 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34):
However, didn't Clinton do something else like drop the limitations on how many stations one company can own or something similar?

Yes, it was called the Ominbus Communications Act of 1996. Prior to its passage a person or corporation could only own 1 fm and 2 am radio stations or 1 am and 2 fm stations in one market. After passage that regulation was dropped and in its place a person or corporation could own up to 50% of all the radio stations in a given market based on arbitron surveys of their listening audience. It was the death knell of the mom and pop radio station business and one of the reasons I decided to get out of it. After 1996 companies like Clear Channel went on huge buying sprees paying way more than some radio stations were worth. To make ends meet, if they came into town and bought 5 radio stations, as an example, 3 or 4 of the bookeepers would lose their jobs and not be replaced. At about that time remote broadcasting control via computer drop in was an up and coming technology. A jock in Des Moines could effectively run 10 radio stations across Iowa from a central location and the listner would not really have any idea that person wasn't right there in town. The passage of that bill just devistated the broadcast industry in terms of talent and opportunity.

NIKV69 · Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:07 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 19):
OK, Chuck Schumer. Hey, equating porn and talk radio is insanity

Tell me about it, not to mention I have to endure Rangel, Nadler and Hillary. It's getting ulgy here in NY.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 35):
and opportunity.

No need to have oppurtunity when you have people in power who want everyone to be the same as far as social standing.

TWFirst · Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:17 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 36):

Tell me about it, not to mention I have to endure Rangel, Nadler and Hillary. It's getting ulgy here in NY.

You're welcome to move at any time.

seb146 · Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:13 pm

Thank you for that info as well. That was the other thing I was trying to think of.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 35):
A jock in Des Moines could effectively run 10 radio stations across Iowa from a central location and the listner would not really have any idea that person wasn't right there in town. The passage of that bill just devistated the broadcast industry in terms of talent and opportunity.

This is one theory I have of the rise of conservative talk radio. Since most of the stations in rural areas can be run by remote and rural areas tend to vote conservative, it was very easy for one group to come along and buy all these small stations and put people like Rush and Hannity on. The problem I have seen is that is the only voice in these areas especially before the internet. People would hear what the conservative commentaters were saying as just take that as the truth. Living in Portland, I have the opportunity to hear conservative radio and liberal radio and research things to find out what is going on. people in rural areas still have only the conservatives telling them what their opinion is. I don't understand what is wrong with having an opposing view. If Rush is on for 3 hours, put someone like Ed Schultz on for 3 hours to get people thinking and asking questions of our leaders instead of what has been happening over the past 15 years.

But, there is no money in it. Media is dead. Media is now there to make a few people money instead of informing the electorate.

RJdxer · Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:23 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38):
Since most of the stations in rural areas can be run by remote and rural areas tend to vote conservative, it was very easy for one group to come along and buy all these small stations and put people like Rush and Hannity on.

Prior to "these" people coming along and buying those station 2 things were happening. One, a station that lost money could have that loss written off in taxes. That changed in 1993. After that those stations that were losing money just went dark and the people in those localities had no service whatsoever. That was unacceptable.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38):
people in rural areas still have only the conservatives telling them what their opinion is.

Then what you are doing is assigning people who live in rural areas a stereotype of stupid. Much as BN747 seems to think that their only job is to produce food for the "smarter" sections of the country which you seem to ascribe as living in.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38):
I don't understand what is wrong with having an opposing view. If Rush is on for 3 hours, put someone like Ed Schultz on for 3 hours to get people thinking and asking questions of our leaders instead of what has been happening over the past 15 years.

You answered your own question with:

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38):
Media is now there to make a few people money instead of informing the electorate.

The purpose of commercial radio stations has always been to make money. It still is today. How many music formatted stations are there compared to talk radio? How are they "informing" the electorate of anything save the weather and traffic at the :20 and :50 breaks?

slider · Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:48 pm

Best comments I read about this:

Jonah Goldberg reacts as any sensible human being would:

Quote:
“Really? So political speech and hardcore pornography: the founders saw no difference between these things? Or forget the founders, since Schumer and Co. usually do. Does Chuck Schumer honestly think the two are comparable? That the state has the same interest in regulating porn as it does in regulating political speech?

“Censoring donkey-human porn from public airwaves is not the same as censoring criticism of someone's tax plan. My God, what is wrong with these people?”

And John McAdams notes the precedent:

Quote:
"When people with strong moral convictions get power, they inevitabily use to to shut up speech they think harmful.

"For about the last couple of decades, the left on college campuses has had the power to shut up speech it didn’t like. Now liberals, flush with victory in the 2008 election, are trying to bring that fascism to broader American society."

Spooky stuff...

FlyDeltaJets87 · Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:40 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
I thought the Fairness Doctrine had something to do with Rush getting a $400 million contract when every other on-air personality is making a pittance in comparison. I'll take Howard Stern's parade of porn stars playing with sex toys on-air over that any day. As far as right wing radio, Michael Savage is infinitely more entertaining than Rush. Even so, the big guy gets the biggest paycheck the world has ever known in radio - totally unfair.

What's "unfair" about that?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 15):
I don't think the Fairness Doctrine will come back, because - as some Democrats have said - "let the right have talk radio - we've got the internet!"

And they're correct, of course - left-leaning bloggers outnumber and out-organize the right by a staggering margin and it's doubtful the new Administration will take on the Fairness Doctrine because they know that true "fairness" would mean reining in some of their online support system.

Hmm....I have my own theory on why that's the case too. But do I want to share it? scratchchin

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38):
If Rush is on for 3 hours, put someone like Ed Schultz on for 3 hours to get people thinking and asking questions of our leaders instead of what has been happening over the past 15 years.

Or someone else can pay to put Ed Schultz on.
The failures of liberal talk radio is not the fault of conservative talk radio.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 4):
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Or the liberals could just improve at talk radio. I certainly don't see liberals complaining with a bunch of the crap that comes out of Hollywood. I don't see liberals calling for the shutting down of the Oprah Winfrey show even though she endorsed Obama.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34):
That is different. No one is forcing anyone to click on blogs. I never do. If I want information, I look at actual news websites. However, with blogs, people choose to click on blogs and blogs are not, generally, paid and broadcast the way Rush or Randi Rhodes are.

You're forced to turn on the radio station though, huh? I can't believe you just made that argument.... Un-freakin'-believable

Just as no one forces you to click on a blog, no one forces you to turn your dial to a radio station, or to stay on that station as you come across it. sarcastic

Just like there's plenty of news networks to choose from, there's plenty of radio stations to choose from.

I guess this is the difference between conservatives and liberals. When conservatives were fed up with the liberalism in the tv media, they created a successful network - Fox News. When liberals were fed up with the conservatism in talk radio, they tried to create a radio network, and it failed. So rather than accept defeat, they complain and either A) try to take the conservative talk radio away or B) force those stations to play liberal talk radio in the name of "balance".

I'll get flamed for saying it, but this thread is proof that liberals only want "balance" when it suits them.

seb146 · Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:08 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39):
Then what you are doing is assigning people who live in rural areas a stereotype of stupid.

No. Not stupid. Under informed. My brother is married to people like this. People that would do anything to keep Rush on the air because he is so "great." When I try to put out an opposing view, I get "Well, Rush said..." and that is the whole argument. I am absolutly wrong "because Rush said..."

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39):
How many music formatted stations are there compared to talk radio? How are they "informing" the electorate of anything save the weather and traffic at the :20 and :50 breaks?

Music and talk formats are completely different. Anymore, talk formats are there to inflame. There are hosts talking about health, money, and home improvement. However, the political talk is ment to polarize people and build a base for the right.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 41):
You're forced to turn on the radio station though, huh? I can't believe you just made that argument.... Un-freakin'-believable

Much better than listening to road noise. I have XM/Sirius, so I do have choices to listen to a lot of different music. I rarely listen to local radio. I do listen to Rush and Hannity once in a while to see what the right is saying/not saying about the government.

Actually, I prefer to get my government news from C-SPAN and BBC.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 41):
but this thread is proof that liberals only want "balance" when it suits them.

I have heard these right wing radio people since the Clinton years. The voice of the left used to be print media. But, when the left tried to keep the opposition voice in print, they have been shouted down. "How dare print media becomes partisan!" It seems those with a voice in the media wants only conservative/right wing views broadcast.

The left still has blogs and the ability to research on the net, but what is wrong with wanting people to hear opposing views? Let me quote my favorite liberal hostess, Randi Rhodes: "Never trust anything any political talk show host says, including me (Randi). Research everything we all say."

PSA727 · Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:38 pm

Nothing is stopping liberals from creating their own talk radio stations. NOTHING. The reason
they don't is because of the lack of money in it. They need to accept that and move on. No
one's free speech is being violated because neither the Left nor the Right is being denied
access to start their own stations. The Left chooses not to. Now why don't we start telling
NBC,CBS,PBS,and ABC that they have to have balanced programming. You know, like
liberal sit-coms and conservative sit-coms, or how about approving which shows can be run
and which ones cannot. This is not a movement about equality, it's about supression.

FruteBrute · Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:14 pm

Lest anyone forget this issue is about using the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to broadcast these messages.

Nothing stops conservatives or any other group from going to XM which is a privately funded operation. The issue is using assets that are owned by all Americans to use as a political ploy.

My stance on the fairness doctrine is if they want to not have equal time, then just pay rent for the bandwidth frequency they are using and put whatever programming on they desire.

aloha73g · Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:20 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
I actually forced myself to listen to Rush this morning. All he did was (as usual) talk about how horrible the left is. He never says anything good about his own party. I have heard Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, all "left wing" radio hosts say both good and bad things about the Dems and Republicans. All I ever seem to hear out of "right wing" hosts is hate towards the Dems. I think that is really why these "hosts" are so popular.

I don't listen to Rush but I have listened to every minute of Laura Ingraham since March of 2005.

She is often extremely critical of the Republican Party....she was the 1st person to say Harriet Miers was a disaster. She (and other hosts) led the fight against Comprehensive Immigration Reform (which was favored by President Bush AND John McCain).

Laura often has segments called "Fight on the Right" where she either moderates a debate between 2 conservatives or she debates a conservative with differing views.

Each host has their own set of beliefs and they don't all agree on everything, they do however provide an alternative point of view.

I agree with you that it is bad for anyone to get all of their information from one source--whether it is Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC, Newsweek or the New York Times.

HOWEVER, to say that the government has the right (or obligation) to ensure "fairness" seems to me to be quite immature. Like someone mentioned above, Liberals dominate the blogosphere, most of the TV networks (except for FOX), most newspapers and major magazines.

Conservatives have found a format that they do well in, and have succeeded. Liberals tried with Air America and failed....it is not as if Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the rest of them somehow prevented Air America from succeeding....it failed because there isn't (yet?) a demand for it.

The Government should not go down the slippery slope of comparing political speech to pornography and trying to regulate political speech (of any kind on either side).

-Aloha!

PHLBOS · Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:03 pm

Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 44):
Nothing stops conservatives or any other group from going to XM which is a privately funded operation.

There already exists both conservative and liberal talk stations on satelite radio (be it XM or Sirius); however, not everyone has nor wants to pay for this service; that's their choice & perrogative. AM and FM radio OTOH are still free entitities for most listeners with the revenue being generated by the purchasing of the sponsors-advertised products.

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 45):
don't listen to Rush but I have listened to every minute of Laura Ingraham since March of 2005.

She is often extremely critical of the Republican Party....

So is Bill O'Reilly, who usually airs at the same time Rush does.

seb146 · Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:42 pm

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 43):
This is not a movement about equality, it's about supression.

I agree: Supressing the left. Laugh if you will, but those on the left are the ones trying to get opposing views on.

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 45):
Liberals tried with Air America and failed....

It is still on the West Coast. Has it failed? Air America, IIRC was bought by a more conservative group.

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 45):
the rest of them somehow prevented Air America from succeeding....it failed because there isn't (yet?) a demand for it.

Actually, there is. That is what this thread is about. There is a demand for opposing views. Not just the devils advocate from the right like Laura Ingram or Alan Colmes, but actual left wing hosts like Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann. Lack of radio stations is preventing Air America from succeeding. Owners is rural markets know how much they are going to make. If they switch formats, they think they will lose money. Selling one station will lose them money.

dc863 · Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:03 pm

"Fairness Doctrine" is such bs. It's tantamount to establishing a state run media like some authoritarian regime.
Liberals just want to squash dissent.

FlyDeltaJets87 · Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:45 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
Much better than listening to road noise.

Well, for people who don't want to listen to road noise, they can buy an IPod and an IPod FM transmitter. I have one and it works wonders. Problem solved. One of the best investments I've ever made.
Or you can buy some blank CDs and burn them through Itunes or some other music program on your computer.

I know, it took a rocket scientist to figure this one out. sarcastic

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
but what is wrong with wanting people to hear opposing views?

If you want to "hear the opposite view" then why don't you be the one to invest in those radio stations?

Quoting Dc863 (Reply 48):
Liberals just want to squash dissent.

All this thread has done is continue to show me that many liberals are only "open minded" if your views align with their's.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net