Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, either that or by people who aren't interested in retyping (to no particular purpose) lengthy explanations of the political stances and philosophies of those they mean to refer to every time they mean to refer to them.
The airwaves are owned by the public. You and me. Some question whether an ideological monopolization of the public airwaves and their conversion to a de facto 24/7 neocon propaganda network can really be in the best interests of the country.
Much like the ideological monopolization of the public airwaves of the liberal agenda on PBS and NPR also publicly own and PAID FOR as opposed surviving in the commercial arena. If people wanted to listen to the liberal agenda then it would survive in the marketplace, it's supply and demand and there is simply no demand for left wing propaganda. Regulating what is heard on the radio as far as politic goes is the first steps to a socialist society ... oh wait that's what the libs want. Right comrade?
bingo, I can't stand actually being forced to give money for crap I don't like.
other media is paid for by people that care, but to waste tax dollars like pbs and npr do should be illegal.
Wasn't the Fairness Doctrine instituted back in the 50's, when there was virtually only ONE form of communication to the masses, radio? The Fairness Doctrine was instituted because there is a VERY limited amount of space on the airwaves, and they didn't want it taken over by "Communists" (during the McCarthy era) and the wanted it to serve the "public good".
Now, we have so many alternative avenues to receive communication en masse other than radio, from the internet to newspapers to books to satellite radio to digital. Who really cares about regulating the radio airwaves, which are becoming more and more obsolete? In other words, in the 1950's, if the radio airwaves consisted mainly of what's on talk radio now, you'd have very few outlets to find an opposing view. Can that really be said today?
Just wanted to get an idea of what everyone thinks of certain liberal politicians' efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Personally, I think it stinks of a communist agenda. It's been said before, but the reason talk radio is dominated by conservatives is because that's what the market demands. Liberals have taken a go at talk radio and failed miserably. Now they act like we as citizens shouldn't be able to decide for ourselves what to listen to.
Pundits like Sean Hannity, "Uncle Phil" Valentine, and Neil Boortz are successful because they address hot issues using logic and reason.
I'm not sure if that's the reason as opposed to conservative talk radio filling a void lacking in newspapers and TV. Did people not listen to air america because the talent was untalented or because what they had to say could be read in any newspaper or seen on any broadcast TV news station? Liberal talk radio is competing with all other media for the same audience. They had their shot, a ton of PR and no one tuned in. Should station managers be forced to air radio shows that don't make money?
If the fairness doctrine is passed Conservative Talk radio should go offshore.
Much like the ideological monopolization of the public airwaves of the liberal agenda on PBS and NPR also publicly own and PAID FOR as opposed surviving in the commercial arena. If people wanted to listen to the liberal agenda then it would survive in the marketplace, it's supply and demand and there is simply no demand for left wing propaganda. Regulating what is heard on the radio as far as politic goes is the first steps to a socialist society ... oh wait that's what the libs want. Right comrade?
Americans overwhelmingly see public broadcasting as an unbiased information source. Perhaps that's what the GOP finds so offensive about it. Republican leaders are trying to bring every facet of the federal government under their control. Now they are trying to put their ideological stamp on public broadcasting.
-- David Obey (D-WI) June 2005
You are rather precisely falling into line behind my earlier post about having the whole pie and feeling that even that is not enough. Meanwhile, public broadcasting is not state-owned and it derives about 15% of its total funding from federal sources. Bush spent more than that in Iraq just this past weekend. Then there are your false premises of a monopoly in any spectrum by public broadcasting and its promotion of a liberal agenda, as well as a bypassing of the premise that public broadcasting was founded as a means for providing programming that purely commerical services would not. Your Magical Markets are not at all the wondrous engines for excellence that you apparently imagine them to be. See Great Depression for one example...
With the creation and growth of alternative means of communication, I question the need for reinstitution of the fairness doctrine. Messages can be communicated via the internet, internet radio and satellite radio too.
Frankly, I don't see the big deal about talk radio, most of it seems to be folks just endlessly repeating the same messages. For folks who find that interesting, let them cannibalize each other's talk shows.
Really, how much impact do you think they even have today? Take a look at opinion polls and break out the age stratas on opinions and you find that they have a hard core of audience repeatedly hearing the same message. Even their process doesn't vary from show to show, set up an extreme straw man position, attribute it to "liberals", and beat it to death with your callers. I'm amazed how many times folks can listen to the same thing without starting to feel like their intelligence isn't being insulted.
I have no problem with many of the conservative positions, but also agree with many of the liberal proposals too. I just find the conservative communication process a bit grating.
bingo, I can't stand actually being forced to give money for crap I don't like. other media is paid for by people that care, but to waste tax dollars like pbs and npr do should be illegal.
So, what's your take on federal funding going to faith-based abstinence-only sex-ed programs? Meanwhile, living in a society at all means that you will pay for 'crap you don't like', as will everyone else.
Other media are meanwhile paid for by people who are advertisers, and all they actually care about is how many people are tuned in and how much money they happen to have.
Wasn't the Fairness Doctrine instituted back in the 50's, when there was virtually only ONE form of communication to the masses, radio? The Fairness Doctrine was instituted because there is a VERY limited amount of space on the airwaves, and they didn't want it taken over by "Communists" (during the McCarthy era) and the wanted it to serve the "public good".
It arose from Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937. The modern form of the Fairness Doctrine was in effect from the late 1940's to the late 1980's. The Red Scare and McCarthyism were not factors. A desire to prevent the public airwaves from being dominated by any political group or point of view was. The fact that the airwaves are owned by everyone meant that they should reflect the political views of either everyone or (originally) no one at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
Now, we have so many alternative avenues to receive communication en masse other than radio, from the internet to newspapers to books to satellite radio to digital. Who really cares about regulating the radio airwaves, which are becoming more and more obsolete?
The argument is frequently raised, but it cuts both ways. With so many other outlets and means of communication available for viewpoint domination, why should the public airwaves be reserved as a potential (and currently de facto) domain for any particular group?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
