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.
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. They don't try to tug at anyone's heartstrings or blame society for America's woes; they offer logical and pragmatic solutions to the problems of today, such as the war in Iraq and illegal immigration.
As I mentioned earlier, liberals have tried to balance out talk radio in the past by filling the airwaves with their own garbage, and people didn't tune in. Why can't they step up to the plate and give us something worth listening to, instead of trying to take what we ARE listening to off the air?
You really should learn what the term 'Communism' means
before using it like you did. Made especially more ridiculous
because your post supports those who oppose free speech,
freedom of the press and call the Constitution "A G**D***
piece of paper"
Should talk radio be banned ? No....even imbeciles and
people on drinking binges should have an outlet to excercise
thier freedom of speech, but on a human level one can only
hope when certain species evolve it will go away by itself.
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.
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.
The "neocons", as you so prudently stated, aren't monopolizing anything against anyone's will. They aren't Microsoft or AT&T. They dominate talk radio because that's what the public wants to listen to. It's all market driven.
If you want liberal talk radio to succeed, find the 3% of it that has actually survived and tune in. Beef up their ratings, and maybe more of it will follow.
But don't rely on the government to shut down what the majority of radio listeners want to hear just because you don't like it.
What has recently been put forth called "a fairness doctrine", which previously applied to other media requiring that all "viewpoints" have equal opportunity in media time or print space to espouse their respective viewpoints ....
Is now being converted to a "shut down" policy on the conservative AM radio talk shows that have a viewpoint which disagrees with a certain select annointed few who would choose to regulate what news and information we can listen to in an otherwise free market.
Apparently, the annointed few cannot tolerate the possibility that free people might have different viewpoints than theirs. Considering that other media generally completely supports their viewpoint ... and we even have NPR, too, which is rather left leaning ... there's certainly no dearth of them getting their message out every day in readily accessible formats to those who want that "news".
There's nothing at this time that prevents them from funding and seeking sponsors for their message on the AM band talk shows. But the current track record suggests that the message isn't very popular with the listeners, and fails to support itself in a competitive free market. That's too bad, but it certainly doesn't mean that those who seek their message can't get it because it's being driven out by those with other viewpoints.
It is ridiculous to regulate whatever people want to spend their time listineing to. Let them live their lives as they see fit.
Rush and all the Rush wannabees on radio have enjoyed success because their audience is skewed white, male and old, a typically wave the flag, our way or the highway, God, apple pie and the Stars and Stripes, everyone else can go to Hel* crowd. The silly sound bites they use as suggestions to fix issues are good for bumper stickers, that is about it. But I don't see any underlying harm.
The "neocons", as you so prudently stated, aren't monopolizing anything against anyone's will. They aren't Microsoft or AT&T. They dominate talk radio because that's what the public wants to listen to. It's all market driven.
What market would that be? The right to broadcast over the public ariwaves is strictly state-controlled. It requires that one have a license issued by the federal government in its capacity as trustee for the owners of the public airwaves, that being everyone. Neocons actually comprise a small and shrinking fraction of everyone. Can you explain why a public resource should be dedicated to the purposes of such a minority, rather than its being expected to serve the interests of everyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimpy
If you want liberal talk radio to succeed, find the 3% of it that has actually survived and tune in. Beef up their ratings, and maybe more of it will follow.
I don't personally care whether liberal talk radio even exists, much less succeeds. Most liberals do not in any case perceive a need to be led, fed, and reinforced each day the way many neocons do. The actual question in the matter however is whether over-the-air license holders serve the public interest by continuously broadcasting a single point of view. In the fifty years or so before Reagan scuttled the Fairness Doctrine, this was not permitted. Now it is. Some think that the changes that have resulted are for the worse. They have, for instance, surveys and studies showing that the current situation has promoted greater ignorance of, rather than knowledge of, the world and what is going on within it. They then ask how a monopoly that promotes ignorance can be in the public interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimpy
But don't rely on the government to shut down what the majority of radio listeners want to hear just because you don't like it.
No one is trying to shut down anything. You may have been listening to too much AM radio. Originally, over-the-air license holders were not permitted to express any political opinion at all. That was later modified. Broadcasters could express any political opinion they wanted, so long as they gave equivalent air time to responsible spokespersons for opposing views. They were also required to devote a small number of hours each week to public service and public interest programming. In this way, it was hoped that a publicly-held medium would serve the interest of the entire public, not just a narrow segment within it.
Last edited by saganista; 07-08-2007 at 01:40 PM..
The issue, as I see it, is that because liberal media doesn't sell they want to force a balance. So, if a conservative show must be balanced by a liberal show but the radio station can not find sponsors (commercials) to support the liberal show does that mean they can not air the conservative show or does that mean they must provide the liberal show free air time and then how fair is that to the conservative show? (Holy run on sentences!)
Can anyone say free speech?
Don't I have the choice to listen to what ever free speech I find agreeable?
They have, for instance, surveys and studies showing that the current situation has promoted greater ignorance of, rather than knowledge of, the world and what is going on within it. They then ask how a monopoly that promotes ignorance can be in the public interest.
That is a good point, Sag. People that listen to Rush and Fox news were found to be the most ignorant of real news and world events, per a recent Pew Research Survey. A lot of people like their news "Unfair and Biased", to the point they are being fed misinformation.
This issue is completely one of freedom of speech.
If those who feel under represented in talk radio are demanding equal exposure, then they need to start supporting their brand of talk radio so that the few shows that are currently out there don't flounder and die.
If the situation were reversed and conservative talk radio was the sinking ship, this wouldn't even be an issue.
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.
