Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34): 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.

Tell me - precisely what caliber of gun is being held to your head, forcing you to listen to conservative talk radio against your will?

I wish we could have more 'moderates' as political commentators-entertainers on radio. Radio seems to have either music, sports, humor/shock jocks (like Howard Stern and his immitators), or mainly right-wing political/social talk radio. The lack of balance, or other or more moderating views but those of 'conservatives' is not good for the voting public as it discourages the broad range of information needed to be a good citizen.
While I don't think the govenment can return to fairness doctorine, there are other ways including the requirement of public input of how a station serves a community at license renewal time to inflence programming. That almost none of the cnservative commentators are Black or Hispanic or women is not reflecting the 'community' requirements to maintan a license.

Gosh, guys, I wish you'd all cool off..............

To my mind, one of the best things about the United States is that people are subjected to all kinds of direct and 'subliminal' persuasions, and all the OTHER techniques designed to influence them - and then they go off and make up their own minds about what they think..........

To my mind it doesn't MATTER what some whizzkid thinks can be done by means of 'influencing the media.' Whatever techniques they dream up, it'll just be a waste of money......

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42): Music and talk formats are completely different.

Irrevelant. You said:

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38): 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.

If that is the case, what "information" does a music fomatted station provide?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42): 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.

Can you name the name of one conservative political host on NPR? That by the way is protected radio, doesn't have to make a dime, in set aside frequency band that is not up for license every several years.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42): The left still has blogs and the ability to research on the net, but what is wrong with wanting people to hear opposing views?

To do so they can tune to NPR. Where, for the most part, liberal shows have been tried they have been an absolute disaster when it comes to making money.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42): 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."

Which is all well and good but that still doesn't mean she can make any money for a station on a syndicated basis.

Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 44): Lest anyone forget this issue is about using the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to broadcast these messages.

That's right, the public airwaves. Are you suggesting some beuarucrat in D.C. should be able to decide what the public can decide for themselves?

Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 44): 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.

They already do in the form of licensing, legal, and user fees.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 47): I agree: Supressing the left. Laugh if you will, but those on the left are the ones trying to get opposing views on.

Which on commercial radio has been an abysmal business failure in most places it's been tried. One more time, the purpose of a commercial radio station is to make money for the licensee. They have an obligation to the community to keep them informed in the case of bad weather, disasters, and emergency situations but other than that they are pretty much free to decide what they will air within the limits of decency. If liberal talk radio were such a hot commodity there would be stations fighting over the rights to air it same as they do Rush and Hannity. What the fairness doctrine is suggesting is actual government control over programming since for every minute the station makes money it would have to air a minute of programming where it is losing money. Come to think of it, just like the government!

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 49): If you want to "hear the opposite view" then why don't you be the one to invest in those radio stations?

Maybe if the economy were better....

Seriously, thought, that idea is not half bad. The problem is: small markets have been carrying conservative talk radio which has endoctrinated the listeners to the point where anything other than the right is the spawn of Satan. Let me remind you that even though I live in PDX, I still have family living in rural areas who believe every last letter of every conservative host out there and nothing but nothing will ever change what they believe.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 50): precisely what caliber of gun is being held to your head, forcing you to listen to conservative talk radio against your will?

Funny you should mention that. When I try to explain opposing views to those in rural areas, I am called all sorts of names and blamed for everything wrong in this country instead of having them listen. What caliber of gun is being held to their head so they listen to any opposing view? None. But, the thought that anything other than the Republican view is wrong is what makes these people shut down the logic part of their brain.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 53): Which is all well and good but that still doesn't mean she can make any money for a station on a syndicated basis.

Not exactly true. She does not fly in some markets, but, many Air America stations cut to Randi (who is on Nova M) because she makes more money. She actually is very popular in nearly every market among liberal hosts.

But, when I quoted her, that was not my point.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 54): But, when I quoted her, that was not my point.

But that is the entire point. Brining back the fairness doctrine will literally shut down hundreds of AM stations across the country. Nobody is willing to pay ad rates to sponsor shows that nobody listens too. Of course if you wanted to limit free speech and ideas what a great way to go about it. And you thought there wasn't any method to the liberal madness.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 55): Of course if you wanted to limit free speech and ideas what a great way to go about it.

So, the fact that conservatives all across the country want to have only conservative hosts on the airwaves is not a limit on free speech? Is there no shame to the control the conservatives want so desparately in this country? Geez.... It's not like every talk station will shrivel and die with three hours a day of liberal talk. The biggest radio station on AM in Portland is KEX. Here is what they could do to get around the fairness doctrine: Put the liberal on from 2AM to 5AM. Who listens then and, besides, they could say they are providing the liberal balance.

I guess I can register as a Republican, now.... I feel bad. I have to go blog....

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): So, the fact that conservatives all across the country want to have only conservative hosts on the airwaves is not a limit on free speech?

But that's not the case. The problem is that liberal talk does not sell. As I've tried to get you to understand, a program has to be able to be sold on commercial radio to be viable. The electric company doesn't provide free electricity to run the transmitter just because nobody is listening and therefore nobody is buying any products that happen to find their way on to the air in that time slot.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): It's not like every talk station will shrivel and die with three hours a day of liberal talk.

How would you like it if I asked you to work for 3 hours a day for free? Essentially that is what you asking the owners of these radio stations to do.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): Put the liberal on from 2AM to 5AM. Who listens then and, besides, they could say they are providing the liberal balance.

Because that would not satisfy the fairness doctrine. Not only did it say that there had to be equal time, but it had to be at an equal hour. So if Rush is on noon to 3 on Monday the liberal show would have to be on noon to 3 Tuesday, or the next Monday. It would be a programming nightmare.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): So, the fact that conservatives all across the country want to have only conservative hosts on the airwaves is not a limit on free speech?

Let's try it this way...conservatives do not have a problem with liberal hosts on the airwaves.
They can flood the airwaves with their own product for all I care. And get this...nothing right
now is stopping them except one thing: proftablility. Who's fault is that? Radio stations are
privately owned and should be allowed to run their stations with the business model of their
choice. And believe me, if they could make more money with a liberal format instead of a
conservative one, they would do it. Have you ever listened to a radio station, then one day
it's a completely different music format, you know from rock to say latino music? There's a
reason for that...capitalism.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): So, the fact that conservatives all across the country want to have only conservative hosts on the airwaves is not a limit on free speech?

The fact that you make this argument is pathetic. In fact, I forgot who it was, but one of the conservative talk show host even went on Air America as it was starting out.  

As it was stated before, flood the airwaves all you want with liberal talk radio, and I'll just choose not to listen. When Limbaugh and Hannity come on at 12 and 3 respectively, I'll turn off the IPod broadcaster and listen to them and when Hannity goes off at 6, back on goes the IPod with my music.    But what you still fail to grasp is that liberal talk radio doesn't fail because of conservatives; it fails because of the people who run them and you and your fellow liberals not giving enough support to the sponsors who provide the money to keep the station running.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): It's not like every talk station will shrivel and die with three hours a day of liberal talk.

Then why don't you pay for it out of your pocket?    Because liberals expect.....*sigh* - I won't go there.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): The biggest radio station on AM in Portland is KEX. Here is what they could do to get around the fairness doctrine: Put the liberal on from 2AM to 5AM. Who listens then and, besides, they could say they are providing the liberal balance.

Why? So the next stepping stone in the process becomes "Well, they only gives us the times no one is listening to anyway so that's hardly 'fariness'"? You liberals are too predictable.

Besides, if I were Limbaugh or Hannity or such, to get around the "Fairness Doctrine", I'd just start saying I run a "moderate" political talk radio show. Sort of like how Bill O'Reilly considers himself a "moderate" on The O'Reilly Factor.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 54): Maybe if the economy were better....

Well supposedly its our (conservatives) fault for this bad economy so you think all these people blaming us would tune into liberal talk shows instead and the liberal talk shows would see more success.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 51): I wish we could have more 'moderates' as political commentators-entertainers on radio. Radio seems to have either music, sports, humor/shock jocks (like Howard Stern and his immitators), or mainly right-wing political/social talk radio. The lack of balance, or other or more moderating views but those of 'conservatives' is not good for the voting public as it discourages the broad range of information needed to be a good citizen.

Replace "radio" with "Hollywood" and "right-wing political talk radio" with "liberal movies/documentaries/actors". So I just decide not to go see certain Hollywood movies. Oh that's right - we're not forced to go see movies while according to Seb146, we're apparently forced to listen to conservative talk radio.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): I guess I can register as a Republican, now.... I feel bad. I have to go blog....

Or you could just stop whining.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 54): When I try to explain opposing views to those in rural areas, I am called all sorts of names and blamed for everything wrong in this country instead of having them listen.

If you explain "opposing views" in the same manner out there as you do in this forum, then *turn to very sarcastic voice* I just can't imagine why you're called all sorts of names.  

Please call the "Whambulance" at Whine-One-One.   

[Edited 2008-11-08 20:56:32]

1.) I love the airnutters and their crazy "end of the world/conspiracy" theories! 

2.) I don't see this happening.

3.) I am totaly against it.

Quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  

-HSII

Quoting HowSwedeitis (Reply 60): Quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Works well with a speakers corner or a printing press, even the internet. It doesn't work at all when it is the government, in the name of the people, that owns the airwaves and licences those frequencies out. The government, by virtue of the fact they "own" the airwaves can set the rules as far as speech and decorum goes.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 57): The problem is that liberal talk does not sell

On the whole, it may look like it does not. However, it really does. I don't hear many public service announcements on KPOJ. However, I do hear PSAs on KTIX in Pendleton, home of Rush. Does that mean Rush is not popular in Pendleton and should be replaced with a liberal? No. It just means businesses do not have the amount to pay for time on KTIX during Rush. No one's fault, really. That is the way things go in small towns.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 57): So if Rush is on noon to 3 on Monday the liberal show would have to be on noon to 3 Tuesday, or the next Monday

But that makes no sense from either liberal or conservative standpoint.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 58): Who's fault is that? Radio stations are privately owned and should be allowed to run their stations with the business model of their choice

The most popular station in the Portland market is El Rey, a Spanish language music station. How could this be? Well, in simplest tearms, those that do have a choice are downloading music and listening to iPods instead of the radio. Latinos, I think, got what they could afford and get music and information from that: the radio.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 59): If you explain "opposing views" in the same manner out there as you do in this forum, then *turn to very sarcastic voice* I just can't imagine why you're called all sorts of names.

Oh, geez.....

The biggest problem I have always had with the internet is it is all words. I can read sarcasm into every single post, if I choose. If we were to meet in person, you would find I am not sarcastic about my beliefs. I do not raise my voice or call names. I simply state my opinion. In return I get "Well, Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly said..." louder and louder. When I talk about my sources and what BBC, C-SPAN, NYT or any source said, I get countered with "Well, Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly said..." I explain my views, how I see things and what my opinions are, but they are wrong wrong wrong because "Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly said..."

Keep in mind, there are many talk show hosts that do not do well at all yet are still on the air. Also, what ever happened to the media being the opposition? I don't mean just being the mouthpiece of whatever party one thinks they are but a true voice of opposition or simply stating the facts? Things like "Congress today did this and the president did that" instead of "Brad and Angelina had twins!" or "Sarah Palin's glasses are all the rage!" Now, it seems, when there is political news, it is "Republicans blocked this" and "Democrats blocked that." Maybe if the media did what it used to do, we would not be needing to debate the Fairness Doctrine.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 62): just means businesses do not have the amount to pay for time on KTIX during Rush.

For what the station has to pay for Rush I'm sure that they would make sure that all available inventory is sold. I wonder if you are hearing local psa's or misfires in the automated system. When the Limbaugh program is in the local break they play parody psa's and skits to cover in case of a misfire like that. That would make more sense. Even a trade spot to pay off some trade items would be preferable to a psa.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 62): But that makes no sense from either liberal or conservative standpoint.

It make perfect sense if your actual goal is get conservative talk radio off the air.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 63): It make perfect sense if your actual goal is get conservative talk radio off the air.

Or to keep liberal ideas off the air.

What if liberals had bought companies like Clear Channel and put liberal talk on instead of conservative talk?

I have noticed, more often than not, conservative hosts will pick on the most rediculous charicter flaw of a person to convince the audience how evil liberals are. Lieberman was just an evil tool of the Democratic party in 2000. Hand picked by Al Gore simply to get the Jewish vote. All of a sudden, as an "Independant" who votes with Bush, he is just the greatest guy.

I have never understood why conservatives refuse to ask "but what about the opposing view?" I mean, as a "liberal" I acutally support gun ownership. I do believe there should be a waiting period and back ground checks, but if people want to own guns, let them own guns. However, since I am a "liberal" I am automatically percieved as one of the evil ones who wants nothing more than to take away all guns forever. Conservative talk perpetuates that myth among others. But, there should be no Fairness Doctrine. Everyone should just go on believing that all liberals want to hand out condoms to 5 year olds and take away all guns and use abortion for any reason because this is America and because there is one voice on talk radio (conservatives), that is all there needs to be. Right?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 64): Or to keep liberal ideas off the air.

Liberal ideas are, for the most part, already off the air since no one is willing to buy ad time during the time they are on the air.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 64): What if liberals had bought companies like Clear Channel and put liberal talk on instead of conservative talk?

Then Clear Channel would go the way of Air America.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 56): The biggest radio station on AM in Portland is KEX. Here is what they could do to get around the fairness doctrine: Put the liberal on from 2AM to 5AM. Who listens then and, besides, they could say they are providing the liberal balance.

You killed your own argument. If there was enough demand from liberals for a host of their liking in a prime time slot, then KEX would have a liberal on. Stations can only be expected to do what will bring them the most revenue, within reason.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 64): Conservative talk perpetuates that myth among others. But, there should be no Fairness Doctrine. Everyone should just go on believing that all liberals want to hand out condoms to 5 year olds and take away all guns and use abortion for any reason because this is America and because there is one voice on talk radio (conservatives), that is all there needs to be. Right?

What does that have to do with anything dude?? Radio, like any other form of media, is a consumer market. When every anchor on local Portland TV is being fired and replaced by some staunch conservative who only does what you're talking about above, then there will be reason for concern. Otherwise this is just mindless bloviating about nothing.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 37): You're welcome to move at any time.

Oh really? Didn't know that. I will be staying around. If Peter King can stomach all you progressive elitists I can too.

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

Yep.

Quoting Dc863 (Reply 48): "Fairness Doctrine" is such bs. It's tantamount to establishing a state run media like some authoritarian regime. Liberals just want to squash dissent.

The left would love to do just that. Especially on talk radio.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 66): Stations can only be expected to do what will bring them the most revenue, within reason.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 65): Then Clear Channel would go the way of Air America.

How do we know that? Because Air America is doing poorly as a whole right now? I guess since conservatives want to control the airwaves, we will never know. I like Ed Schultz. He is not as "in your face" as most hosts, but I don't think he would do well against most conservative hosts. I think some hosts would do very well on other networks. But, as a whole, talk radio is a very small and specialized audience, anyway.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 66): What does that have to do with anything dude?? Radio, like any other form of media, is a consumer market. When every anchor on local Portland TV is being fired and replaced by some staunch conservative who only does what you're talking about above, then there will be reason for concern

KPTV channel 12 has been popular in the past. Mostly because they report every crime. Every gun shot, every broken window. Every movement by every celebrity. They sensationalize everything. As opposed to the other three stations who report what is going on in the legislature, city councils, and some crime. It does no good to let KPTV know what a travesty they are doing to the news. They are a FOX affiliate. That answers everything.

More to the point, conservative radio hosts are try so hard to make all liberals, or anyone in the Democratic party or voted Democrat as deamon spawn. Since a small group of people within the Democratic party want to hand out condoms to grade school children and a different small group of people within the Democratic party want to ban all guns. For that reason, conservative radio hosts try to get their listeners to believe all Democrats think that way.

A story reporting some piece of legislation supported by Democrats is reported on Public Radio including resons why Republicans are against it, suddenly NPR is the liberal voice. But, people that listen to conservative talk radio in rural areas think NPR is the spawn of Satan because they report on legislation supported by Democrats. Period. Because a conservative talk show host said so. Listeners hear sound bites chosen by the conservative host instead of listening to the whole story for themselves. Yes, liberal hosts do the same thing. But, at least with liberal hosts, they take the time to listen to opposing views. They may not agree, but they listen.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 68): But, as a whole, talk radio is a very small and specialized audience, anyway.

Man you do all the work....killed your own argument again!

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 68): KPTV channel 12 has been popular in the past. Mostly because they report every crime. Every gun shot, every broken window. Every movement by every celebrity. They sensationalize everything. As opposed to the other three stations who report what is going on in the legislature, city councils, and some crime. It does no good to let KPTV know what a travesty they are doing to the news. They are a FOX affiliate. That answers everything.

Then start a letter-writing campaign or go door-to-door to get your neighbors to demand more substantive reporting or a change of affiliation at KPTV. Or just plain encourage everyone you know to watch more decent local news. I really don't care what you do but whining about unfairness on an internet forum doesn't help your cause any!

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 68): How do we know that? Because Air America is doing poorly as a whole right now?

Well that would be a good start. If Air America were doing well there would be no push to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 68): but I don't think he would do well against most conservative hosts.

Which means that he wouldn't sell which means that he will get dropped in favor of someone that does. That is the way of commercial radio. If you can't make money for the station you're gone. What part of that equation don't you understand? You keep arguing that liberal hosts should be allowed and yet by your own admissions you don't think they would do as well as conservative hosts. You are advocating that a business lose money, do you advocate that for your own business?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 68): For that reason, conservative radio hosts try to get their listeners to believe all Democrats think that way.

As liberals do their level best to portray all conservatives as part of the religious right.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 71): You are advocating that a business lose money, do you advocate that for your own business?

         That, in a nutshell, is his argument.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 69): Man you do all the work....killed your own argument again!

So the medium would not really lose anything if one conservative voice goes on on liberal station and one liberal voice goes on a conservative station, right? I still fail to see what is wrong with it all. What is wrong with informing people? I, and some liberals, have admitted that conservatives do have a good point. Some conservatives turn on liberals and start the name calling, shouting and just flat out saying ALL liberals are wrong and will not even accept any other view.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 70): As liberals do their level best to portray all conservatives as part of the religious right.

Huh? Every liberal host I have ever heard does not do that. I have heard how the religious right "helps" the Republicans/conservatives. Liberal hosts I have heard do make a distinction between religion and politics.

For the record, I refuse to listen to Mike Malloy. He is a liberal talk host. I think he is as bad (sometimes worse) than Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly. I didn't listen to Al Franken, either. There are a few points Lars Larson makes that make sense and, at the very least, does not come across as a screaming idiot. Still, I would like to hear opposing views.

The first problem I have with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is who decides what is "liberal" or "conservative" and has to be balanced? Conservatives come in several different flavours, from small-government conservatives, to the Religious Right, to "great nation" big-government conservatives, to the libertarian Right. Not all liberals have the same set of beliefs either. So how do we "balance" all these opposing views?

Not to mention the question of who's going to cover the losses radio stations have when the less popular "fairness" personality comes on. Even some liberals admit that they simply don't do well on radio - they're for the most part simply boring. There was a study (I think it was from the Pew Trust) just before the election that found that, as a general rule, conservatives have better senses of humour than liberals...the social scientists theorized this is in part because conservatives just expect less of the world, and of government in particular, and thus take things less seriously. I don't know how much of this theory holds water, but even Al Franken admitted part of the problem with Air America is simply that liberal talk radio just isn't as entertaining.

Finally, why should broadcasts media, and particularly radio, be singled out? I know the theory is that the airwaves are "public property", but hear me out on this: most American cities have a plenitude of television and radio stations, there's the option of satellite radio, there's the Internet. But most American cities only have ONE daily newspaper, and the barriers to entry in the newspaper industry are much higher than they are in radio...almost every major or mid-sized American city has a radio station up for sale at any given moment. If any media should face a "fairness doctrine", it's the daily newspapers.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 68): guess since conservatives want to control the airwaves, we will never know.

Conservatives are the ones who want to control the airwaves yet liberals like you are the ones advocating controlling the airwaves through the Fairness Doctrine.....   

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 62): If we were to meet in person, you would find I am not sarcastic about my beliefs.

That's scary, because your beliefs imply you're really whiney. You have no understanding of the difference between "what is fair" and "what is right", and they are quite often two different things. Life's not fair, so get over it.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 72): So the medium would not really lose anything if one conservative voice goes on on liberal station and one liberal voice goes on a conservative station, right?

So give some of the projects at your company that are making money and give them to another competitor company that is losing money. Overall no one is losing anything, right?    And it's no different - that's exactly what you're advocating radio stations do. Hey, this is airliners.net so maybe we should advocate airlines do the same thing. Airlines with profitable routes will be forced to give some of those profitable routes away to airlines with several non-profitable routes in the name of "fairness".

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 68): But, as a whole, talk radio is a very small and specialized audience, anyway.

So if conservative talk radio is such a small and specialized audience, which implies that it's not a large enough audience to worry about or make a difference, then why do you need the Fairness Doctrine? I love how this argument is changing. One post it's "talk radio is all that's available to people so a large group of people are forced to listen to it" and in this post, it's a small, insignificant audience.   

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 72): What is wrong with informing people?

Do it with YOUR money then! What is wrong with that? Oh wait - because that's the liberal way. Accomplish everything with everybody money but your's. Right?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 72): So the medium would not really lose anything if one conservative voice goes on on liberal station and one liberal voice goes on a conservative station, right?

So then all I and everyone else do to avoid listening to the liberal guy is switch over to the other station that is now airing the conservative talk show. However, that's bad for the radio station that was having success with the conservative host that was forced to send him/her to another station and was then forced by you to air a money-losing liberal talk show.

Basically, what the Fairness Doctrine comes down to: the audience that listens to talk radio doesn't want liberal talk radio, so liberals will try to force their way into the market through legislation. Why doesn't the audience who listens to talk radio want liberal talk radio? Well, I did a project on this my senior year of high school in AP Government and in my opinion is that one main reason the audience who can listen to talk radio during the day when its on is tends to be conservative. They're your white-collar workers who tend to work in an office or small business environment that will allow them to listen to the radio while at work, while your blue collar workers, who tend to vote Democratic, work in jobs where listening to the radio at work is more difficult.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): the audience that listens to talk radio doesn't want liberal talk radio,

Mainly because they are told they do not want it. They are told they do not want a liberal voice or any opposition voice. Sure, that sounds fair. Government control of everything. Let the government control all media. But, socialism is bad. Communism is bad. But, let's nationalize everything. Intigrate the banks and corporations into government.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 75): Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): the audience that listens to talk radio doesn't want liberal talk radio, Mainly because they are told they do not want it. They are told they do not want a liberal voice or any opposition voice. Sure, that sounds fair. Government control of everything. Let the government control all media. But, socialism is bad. Communism is bad. But, let's nationalize everything. Intigrate the banks and corporations into government.

Do you read what you write before you post it? Your post makes no sense. How on earth are conservatives the ones wanting government control of the media when its liberals like you calling for the Fairness Doctrine?

I also like how you make points and as soon as they're countered, you ignore them and don't respond (yet you get mad when the conservatives you talk to supposedly do the same thing). In the last post alone, I reponded to six of your points, and you responded to part of one. Any particular reason for that, other than just your arguments in this thread are pretty weak and easy to counter?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 72): So the medium would not really lose anything if one conservative voice goes on on liberal station and one liberal voice goes on a conservative station, right?

So now you want stations to lose money instead of just one? Do you advocate this kind of thing for your own business?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 72): Huh? Every liberal host I have ever heard does not do that.

I've heard plenty and sooner or later they all get around to it.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 76): How on earth are conservatives the ones wanting government control of the media when its liberals like you calling for the Fairness Doctrine?

Let's put it this way: conservatives are working hand in glove with broadcasters. That is, those with a conservative voice have more time on the air because those that own a majority of stations own them. Conservatives would never want any other adjenda advanced besides their own. In order to do that, they put on any conservative host they can.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 77): Do you advocate this kind of thing for your own business?

Carpentry is very different from broadcasting.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): That's scary, because your beliefs imply you're really whiney.

And the name calling begins.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): So give some of the projects at your company that are making money and give them to another competitor company that is losing money.

Yes, I have done that before. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Oh, yes. It worked very well, too. But, in the neo-con world, it only works with other neo-cons.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): One post it's "talk radio is all that's available to people so a large group of people are forced to listen to it" and in this post, it's a small, insignificant audience.

I am trying to discuss those that live in rural areas that do not have even the option of listening to any other voice besides conservatives. My brother's in-laws, for example, live in Eastern Oregon. My aunt, for example, lives in Montana. They listen faithfully to conservative talk radio. They quote from conservative talk radio and will not accept any other point of view. I, however, do have the choice to listen to either conservative or liberal talk radio because I live in Portland. It is much easier to talk to conservatives here because I am not shouted down with "Well, Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly/Lars said..." but, instead, I hear facts and figures.

How much money do you think stations in rural areas are losing? They can not be making that much of a profit to pay the fees to keep names like Hannity and Rush on the air out there. So, what would they lose by putting on an opposing view? Not a lot, I would imagine.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): Do it with YOUR money then! What is wrong with that? Oh wait - because that's the liberal way. Accomplish everything with everybody money but your's. Right?

Like giving my money to bail out corporations and nationalizing banks and starting wars. It is my money, but I never authorized any of that, either. I never told anyone it was okay to spend my tax dollars on the bail out, the war, or the banks. In fact, I have always e-mailed or called my congressmen before any big vote and asked them to please vote no.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): So then all I and everyone else do to avoid listening to the liberal guy is switch over to the other station that is now airing the conservative talk show.

And still never get the other side of the story. But, at least someone would be trying to get part of the opposing view out there.

Happy?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): Carpentry is very different from broadcasting.

Not when it comes down to a business trying to make a profit.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): Conservatives would never want any other adjenda advanced besides their own.

You make it sound like liberals are any different. You obviously don't want the conservative agenda advanced because you're trying to slow it down through the Fairness Doctrine.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): So, what would they lose by putting on an opposing view? Not a lot, I would imagine

Okay, so let's make up those losses with money out of your bank account. I think that sounds reasonably fair.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 74): That's scary, because your beliefs imply you're really whiney. And the name calling begins.

I call it like I see it.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): Yes, I have done that before. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

That's noble of you. But this is done on your own free will, and you can choose when to stop. With the fairness doctrine, radio stations won't have a choice when to stop.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): Like giving my money to bail out corporations and nationalizing banks and starting wars. It is my money, but I never authorized any of that, either.

A) I don't agree with the bail-out either
B) There's a difference between the government using tax dollars for its projects and the government telling a company how to make its own money.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): I never told anyone it was okay to spend my tax dollars on the bail out, the war, or the banks.

So you don't like the government spending tax dollars on things you don't approve but have no problem with telling private companies how to spend their money?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): And still never get the other side of the story. But, at least someone would be trying to get part of the opposing view out there.

More like forcing their views out there. This is typical BS. Liberals only want to get "the other side of the story" if the other side is their side. Like I said, I don't see you advocating the Fairness Doctrine for Hollywood or other forms of media, which tells me you only care if you're sign that's not being advocated. Maybe for every liberal documentary movie or documentary, Hollywood has to produce one conservative based movie or documentary? Wait - that sounds like a ridiculous idea because it is.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): It is much easier to talk to conservatives here because I am not shouted down with "Well, Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly/Lars said..." but, instead, I hear facts and figures.

What's the difference between Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly when they're aired in Portland, Oregon versus when they're aired in Booneyville, Montana?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): Happy?

Well, you were acting the same way as the liberal callers on Limbaugh and Hannity do. They'll say whatever, and then Rush or Sean will respond with a question or stat and the lib will dodge the question and go to something else or not respond at all.
Funny - every thing you accuse conservatives of doing in this thread, I've met and dealt with more than enough liberals who do the same thing.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 79): You obviously don't want the conservative agenda advanced because you're trying to slow it down through the Fairness Doctrine.

The conservative agenda has been being pushed since the days of Regan. The liberal voice has been trying to be put off since then, as well.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 79): Not when it comes down to a business trying to make a profit.

Let me put it to you from my job's view: There are a number of lumber yards here. The two national chain yards (Lowe's and Home Depot) and some mom-and-pop ones. The "big guys" sell the basics. If we need bulk nails or a mass-produced saw, we go there. If a customer asks for something specific, like a thicker board or a special stain, we can find it at one of the mom-and-pop stores. Generally, the basic lumber is pretty much the same price. If we do have to charge more, we let the customer know before we buy anything. They understand.

Keeping that in mind, radio works a little the same way. Advertising costs more during drive times. Is the air heavier during those times? Is the air more crowded during those times? Advertisers know it costs more to play commercials from 7AM to 11AM than 7PM to 11PM. Besides, a good salesman for a radio station could sell ice to an eskimo.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 79): let's make up those losses with money out of your bank account. I think that sounds reasonably fair.

The government is already subsidizing oil companies and banks. What is to stop them from subsidizing radio and television? The conservative view is the only one out there.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 79): With the fairness doctrine, radio stations won't have a choice when to stop.

Yes they will. I remember in the 1980s on KFI from LAX, they had the Radio Game Show. People all over the West Coast would call in. My family was into it, too, all the way in Oregon! People will actually have to read and ask questions of their government. Imagine, an informed electorate!

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 79): What's the difference between Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly when they're aired in Portland, Oregon versus when they're aired in Booneyville, Montana?

Booneyville, Montana? Isn't that near Great Falls?

Just kidding.

The biggest difference I have noticed is the audience. Here (PDX) if a Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly listener does not agree with me, at least s/he will have the courtesy to listen to what I have to say and why I believe that way before telling me why they believe the way they do. In rural areas, listeners of the conservative shows just keep talking louder and louder instead of letting me talk.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 79): They'll say whatever, and then Rush or Sean will respond with a question or stat and the lib will dodge the question and go to something else or not respond at all.

Yes, I have seen the stats they come up with. No polls are accurate. The only real stats I put any faith in come from GAO. Even that sometimes comes with a grain of salt. I have also noticed that Rush/Sean/O'Reilly attack liberal callers on the most obscure points and the most rediculous things.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 54): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 50): precisely what caliber of gun is being held to your head, forcing you to listen to conservative talk radio against your will? Funny you should mention that. When I try to explain opposing views to those in rural areas, I am called all sorts of names and blamed for everything wrong in this country instead of having them listen. What caliber of gun is being held to their head so they listen to any opposing view? None.

The same freedom of speech you enjoy to explain your opposing views is also the same freedom of speech others enjoy when they tell you off. And at that point, you enjoy the freedom to continue the debate or walk away if you choose.

I believe that open minds are the best kind, but frankly there's no law against not listening to other viewpoints. So dial your rhetoric down about being upset over the fact that others don't have to listen to differing viewpoints if they choose not to.

Again, it's really no different than the same freedom you enjoy to choose to listen to a different radio station if you don't like the conservative show being aired.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 78): Carpentry is very different from broadcasting.

Only in details. Would you continue to hire an assistant that did a second rate job? Essentially that is what you are advocating the radio stations do.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 80): Generally, the basic lumber is pretty much the same price. If we do have to charge more, we let the customer know before we buy anything. They understand.

So you admit you have a way to pass the increased cost onto the consumer to avoid a loss, but how do you expect radio stations who are now being forced to air programs that will bring in less money or lose money to make up the difference? Again, I notice you don't cover the increased costs out of your pocket but you turn around and expect the radio stations to just eat the loss.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 80): The conservative agenda has been being pushed since the days of Regan. The liberal voice has been trying to be put off since then, as well.

You're right - there's no place on earth for liberals to get their message out. Not my college professors. Not Hollywood. Not the New York Times. Not MSNBC. Not....you get the picture.   

There's an addition for the Fairness Doctrine: For every registered Democrat that a college campus hires as a professor, they have to hire a registered Republican to teach an equivalent level course. That sounds like "Fairness" to me.   

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 80): Keeping that in mind, radio works a little the same way. Advertising costs more during drive times. Is the air heavier during those times? Is the air more crowded during those times?

It's called supply and demand. There is only so much commercial time on a radio show so during the popular hours, the commercial time is worth more. What that has to do with liberal talk radio failing, I have no idea.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 80): Yes they will. I remember in the 1980s on KFI from LAX, they had the Radio Game Show. People all over the West Coast would call in. My family was into it, too, all the way in Oregon! People will actually have to read and ask questions of their government. Imagine, an informed electorate!

Hannity does this too, only he sends reporters out to the people rather than the people coming to him - it's called the "Man on the Street" interview. Leno does this too, called "Jaywalking". Hannity will ask basic questions such as who is the VP, who is the Sec. of State, the Speaker of the House, etc. Leno will ask similar questions about government positions or basic history. The conclusion I draw from both shows - the electorate is already incredibly stupid and clueless, and most are more concerned with who was voted off from American Idol last night rather than who is really running the country.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 81): Again, it's really no different than the same freedom you enjoy to choose to listen to a different radio station if you don't like the conservative show being aired.

  
It's liberals trying to enforce what they deem as "Fair" instead of allowing what is "Right". And Seb146 clearly does not know the difference between "fair" and "right".
Last I checked, the radio was a form of the press, and I seem to recall the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights saying something along the lines of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Seb146, would you please explain how the Fairness Doctrine does NOT break the First Amendment?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 80): The government is already subsidizing oil companies and banks. What is to stop them from subsidizing radio and television? The conservative view is the only one out there.

Hmm....that's funny - I don't seem to recall saying I supporting government subsidy of oil companies and banks. I could be wrong, but I don't think Hannity and Limbaugh advocated the recent $700 billion bail out plan either.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 80): The biggest difference I have noticed is the audience. Here (PDX) if a Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly listener does not agree with me, at least s/he will have the courtesy to listen to what I have to say and why I believe that way before telling me why they believe the way they do.

True of most conservatives I have met.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 80): In rural areas, listeners of the conservative shows just keep talking louder and louder instead of letting me talk.

How would you know? From what you said, you don't live there. But what you have said is true of nearly every liberal I know - they just try to shout you down, and I end up just walking away. There is only one liberal I know that doesn't do that - a real pot-smoking obamaphile ex-hippie who I play golf with every weekend and we have very civilized conversations.