Nancy Pelosi: repeal that pesky First Amendment. It makes my constituents cry.

does the fairness doctrine apply station to station or market to market?

I'm wondering how many supporters of the fairness doctrine are getting contributions for Sirius/XM.

Seems like this rule is just the thing that would drive a lot of popular talk radio hosts, and their audiences, to satellite radio.

Yes, ban the Fairness Doctrine.
We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.

Yes, ban the Fairness Doctrine.
We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.

Yes, ban the Fairness Doctrine.
We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.
Posted by morris

I take it you would rather trust a politician?

I believe it is station to station...

Posted by James_Dean

Then it's kinda dictatorial... I guess. would it apply to public radio as well?

I take it you would rather trust a politician?

Posted by MrFair at 2008-06-25 12:07 PM |

Over someone trying to maximize his profit by any means possible?

Hell yes.

Pelosi is not poor... well not cash poor.

If this story gets put int he front page, my suggestino for the headline is:

Pelosi 'Repealig Fairness Doctrine off the Table'

which is 49 characters long. I even checked the length with the site's new character count feature and 351 were left.

Over someone trying to maximize his profit by any means possible?

Hell yes.

Posted by morris

Um, Morris - that sure describes most politicians I've read about. They just do it on our dime.

The air waves do not belong to the stations that use them to broadcast. Those stations should be required to proved information that is reasonably honest and balanced which unfortunately the right wing talk stations simply do not do. If the fairness doctrine is brought back it will be because the right has abused the privelege they were granted when they were licensed to use OUR air waves. Even though a few rich bastards have contrived to own many radio stations and dramatically effect the outcomes of many elections in this country, it is not necessarily going to be allowed to continue that way. Iraq as an example proves there is far too much at stake to allow right wing propagandists to illinform voters without being forced to also provide honest contrasting arguments.

I thought the libs were gonna crush Fox News with Algore's Cable Network. You know..Algorezerra

What's wrong with letting left wingers start their own radio station and let the free market decided what they listen to?

War is Peace
Hate is Love
Fairness isn't Fair

-Winston Bush.

That would mean putting a Bill O'Reilly next to every Brian Williams on network tv too right?

"What's wrong with letting left wingers start their own radio station and let the free market decided what they listen to?"

That is what is happening now which is good and if it continues I don't think the Fairness Doctrine will return. However if major corporations that own the networks of radio stations start going back to exclusively conservative talkers then things will have to change. I don't think there will be regulation unless the conservatives bring it on themselves.

However if major corporations that own the networks of radio stations start going back to exclusively conservative talkers then things will have to change.

In a free market the listeners would stop listening, the advertising dollars would dry up, and the corporations would be forced to change. No government intervention necessary.

"No government intervention necessary."

From a right wing perspective of course you would say that but from my perspective I'm not so sure.
I doubt Bush would have been elected without right wing talk, I doubt we would be in Iraq without right wing talk, I doubt the Bush tax cuts would have screwed up the economy without right wing talk.
We will probably have a Democratic Congress and President who will want to be sure no right wing takeover happens again, the country wouldn't survive it, hell, we might not survive this one.

fairness doctrine

n.

A basic tenet of the licensed broadcasting industry in the United States that ensures reasonable opportunity for the airing of opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

OMFG COMMUNISTS!!!!!1111!!!!!1!

That would mean putting a Bill O'Reilly next to every Brian Williams on network tv too right?

So we get to see Keith Olbermann go on his tirade then Michelle Malkin has the rebuttal? Sounds fair to me.

To equally self-important asshats together.

Um, Morris - that sure describes most politicians I've read about. They just do it on our dime.

Posted by MrFair at 2008-06-25 12:54 PM |

And it applies to every person that has to answer to shareholders and a board of directors.

And, I would submit, that there are plenty of pols and gov't employees that you don't read about because they just do their jobs.

"To equally self-important asshats together."

I pretty much agree with you there.
This country is too punditized and real news becomes a rare commodity.

And it applies to every person that has to answer to shareholders and a board of directors.

And, I would submit, that there are plenty of pols and gov't employees that you don't read about because they just do their jobs.

Posted by morris

Morris - give it up, it's a weak argument. Bear in mind all those poor saps working at Wal-Mart or tellering at Citibank or pumping gas at Mobil. Same thing - the rank and file, but they all report to the shareholders don't they?

Bottom line: the market can decide what's on the radio. You've seen it in action already.

From a right wing perspective of course you would say that but from my perspective I'm not so sure.
I doubt Bush would have been elected without right wing talk, I doubt we would be in Iraq without right wing talk, I doubt the Bush tax cuts would have screwed up the economy without right wing talk.
We will probably have a Democratic Congress and President who will want to be sure no right wing takeover happens again, the country wouldn't survive it, hell, we might not survive this one.

Posted by danni

Danni - you went way off track with that last post. Yes right-wing radio helped Bush get elected but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has MILLIONS of faithful listeners/voters.

Left-wing radio just needs to broadcast something that will generate similar interest and numbers. That's all.

We all know that those with the most money are always right and wise and good and are acting in the best interests of us all.

Since when has having money meant that your First Amendment rights don't apply? I must have missed that part of the Constitution, right along with the part that says you are only allowed to speak in public as long as you can find someone that disagrees with you.

If the fairness doctrine is brought back it will be because the right has abused the privelege they were granted when they were licensed to use OUR air waves.

Who is the "OUR" you are referring to in regards to ownership of the airwaves? The millions of listeners to conservative talk radio? The many liberal radio listeners that decided that Air America was a pile of crap? Or the many millions more of listeners that don't give a crap one way or the other and just tune in to the radio to hear music?

Tell me, which one of those groups is complaining about the lack of the "Fairness Doctrine"? Which one of those groups is the "OUR" that you speak of?

I used to drive to Lafayette from Port Allen about 4 times a week.

I'd be able to catch The Young Turks, Ed Schulz and Thom Hartmann in Port Allen, and Hannity/Rush in Lafayette.
It was great to be able to hear both sides (although they rarely talked about the same issues).

Eventually the liberal station turned gospel. They just couldn't seem to get advertisers.

Eventually the liberal station turned gospel. They just couldn't seem to get advertisers.

There was a liberal radio station in Dallas had the same problem -- no listeners and it folded.

That's why Pelosi et alia want this bill passed into law. They can't compete on an even playing field in radioland, so they want to legislatively bully their way in.

Please tell me why Air America gets crushed in the this country's largest media markey NYC even though Dems outnumber Republicans..... I would like to know.

Because Air America is boring. They really don't say the outlandish and borderline criminal things as loudly, or as often, as extreme right wing radio does.

People are rubberneckers. We like to see a train wreck. Rush limbaugh IS that train wreck. So is American idol. Cops. Jerry springer, every reality TV show, ect ect.

The popularity of all of these shows is based on the level of insanity and stupidity achieved by the players/participants. It's amusing to the audience.

What is "extreme right wing radio".

Alexandrite. I hope you don't work in advertising. YOu wouldn't last long

Please tell me why Air America gets crushed in the this country's largest media markey NYC even though Dems outnumber Republicans..... I would like to know.

Because when Al Franken says things like, I didn't object to the war, I objected to the fact we didn't do a good job by sending enough troops, then you aren't a liberal...you're conservative-lite.

you're conservative-lite

...or John McCain.

The point of the Fairness doctrine is not to make sure you have liberal/conservative, rep/dem, gay /straight etc. radio available.

The point is that I can go on radio show X and rebut host X so that X's listeners hear the TRUTH (as I see it)

As it stands now Host X can spew out lie after lie and the only rebuttal if any is usually on another radio station. So most of Host X's listeners will never hear the truth. (not that they usually want to)

So I ask all of you:

Do you fear the truth?

Ew. I would never listen to gay radio and I would think you might get a disease just by listening

"Left-wing radio just needs to broadcast something that will generate similar interest and numbers. That's all."

In many markets Progressive radio is competing very well against the right wing liars. Some markets they don't have stations yet and some they are on weak signals. The progressive shows haven't been instantaneously put on several hundred stations the way most of the popular right wing shows were but then the progressives don't represent the interests of the corporate owners of much of the media.

I have dream.

Replace 'Hannity and Colmes' with 'O'Reilly and Olbermann'.

It'd be great fun to have them on the same set at the same time.

Rupert probably has already thought of it and if he hasn't I want my fee.

OOH,

1. How do I determine which opposing views are entitled to rebut? One, two, ten?

Yes

2. Of the "offending" time (Rush, for example) are we to take out a stopwatch and measure the amount of time he's saying something deserving of rebuttal? Who determines exactly what constitutes "rebuttable" material? Does Rush talking about his golf game, his cat, his cigars, etc, constitute "rebuttable" material?

Perhaps we could maybe use a little bit of logic and reason on this yes?

3. From a profitability standpoint I need to sell airtime. That's a challenge when I don't know what sort of space I'll have to allot to any number of opposing views.

see above

The rest of your argument is really just regurgitated talking points. All of it points to the conclusion that you support lies.

The inaptly named "fairness doctrine" is nothing but a blatant attempt by Democrats and liberals to shut up views that they don't like.

It is far more fascist and freedom-inhibiting than anything ever done by the Bush administration.

I particularly love the whole 'public airwaves' arguement. A bunch of people and politicians, who are clearly in the minority, want to dictate to all of us what is and isn't appropriate in terms of opinion. We are not talking about prohibiting lewd topics or foul language (go ahead and make your obligatory jokes about Conservative talk being lewd and foul) here, we are talking about censoring opinions and views simply because a minority doesn't like them.

What a bunch of fascists FD supporters are. It's also typical of their collectivist mindset - screw competition and actually having to work for an audience, just look to the government to 'level the playing field'. Have you losers ever competed for anything in your pathetic lives, or do you expect the government to hand evertying to you?

Let me translate JeffJ:

I defend liars and their lies. I am afraid of the truth. I want my "side" to win at all costs.

That about sum it up?

That about sum it up?

What that sums up is a strawman which in no way addresses the points I have made.

Try again.

"The inaptly named "fairness doctrine" is nothing but a blatant attempt by Democrats and liberals to shut up views that they don't like."

Untrue, it is to ensure that someone can not tell lies on the air without any rebuttal at all.

"It is far more fascist and freedom-inhibiting than anything ever done by the Bush administration."

que?

"What a bunch of fascists FD supporters are. It's also typical of their collectivist mindset - screw competition and actually having to work for an audience, just look to the government to 'level the playing field'. Have you losers ever competed for anything in your pathetic lives, or do you expect the government to hand evertying to you?"

Regurgitated talking points boiling down to:
'I want to lie unimpeded.'

Regurgitated talking points boiling down to:
'I want to lie unimpeded.'

Posted by Salaryman

Salaryman - see: "The First Amendment"

Salaryman - also see: Randi Rhoades, Al Franken

Mr. Fair,

I hardly think the 1st amendment protects lies. If anything it is there to protect the truth from government.

As far as Rhoades and Franken; are they liars? I assume they are liberal commentators. Well by all means they should be exempt because I must be a liberal if I don't agree with "conservatives" right?

Salary - you are making a pretzel out of something very simple. Please note: there is free speech in this country, including on the radio.

If there is a problem with lies that actually cause damage to a person, then there are already laws to deal with slander and libel.

But if you are suggesting government intervention to monitor "lies" on the radio you're living in a fantasy world. There is no way to do it. I say let Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken say whatever the hell they want on the air. Unless they are calling for violence, let 'em talk.

I hardly think the 1st amendment protects lies.

Sure it does. Case in point: the fact that you have been allowed to post on this thread unimpeded.

As far as Rhoades and Franken; are they liars?

Short answer: yes.

I assume they are liberal commentators.

Of course you do. You have your biases just like everyone else.

Mr. Fair,

A pretzel is very simple.

On some level I agree with you. But I think that the poison that gets thrown out there and swallowed with out any rebuttal is dangerous.

I am not sure if I would call it government intervention to design the broadcast license with a mechanism that promotes truth.

MOONman,
Care to cite any lies from me?

care to tell me what my bias is?

Care to cite any lies from me?

Too easy.

"Let me translate JeffJ:

I defend liars and their lies. I am afraid of the truth. I want my "side" to win at all costs." -- posted by Salaryman

JeffJ never said any such thing, but hey, you have the right to say what you want regardless of the truth as long as you are not under oath.

care to tell me what my bias is?

Sure, you can't stand opposing conservative to the point that you feel you have to lie about another poster's words.

Moonie,

you confuse satire and sarcasm with lies. Also in this particular forum we have an awful lot of fairness doctrine to go around.

you confuse satire and sarcasm with lies.

Satire is used to point at a hidden truth. For it to be anything but a lie, the hidden meaning it is pointing to would have to be true. Since it isn't, you are guilty of lying.

But hey, I support your right to lie as much as you want via your Constitutional 1st Amendment rights.

Also in this particular forum we have an awful lot of fairness doctrine to go around.

Only be Rogers Cadenhead keeps it that way. If he were to change it tomorrow to ban opposing views, it would suck, but it would also be his right to do so.

Only be

should be: "Only because"

I am not sure if I would call it government intervention to design the broadcast license with a mechanism that promotes truth.
Posted by Salaryman

Salaryman - but who are The Anointed Ones who get to define "truth" and therefore what gets onto the airwaves??

Also to respond to this:
"On some level I agree with you. But I think that the poison that gets thrown out there and swallowed with out any rebuttal is dangerous."

The key word is "swallowed" which in the case of hearing something on the radio describes a voluntary act on the part of the listener. It's up to the individual to decide what is truth and what is BS. Most of us are able to make these distinctions every day without any help from a Fairness Doctrine. Hopefully each of us provides his own rebuttal to any perceived BS.

"Satire is used to point at a hidden truth."

Yes indeed my belief that who does not support something like a fairness doctrine is in fact supporting lies and liars.

"For it to be anything but a lie, the hidden meaning it is pointing to would have to be true."

anyone translate that for me?

"Since it isn't, you are guilty of lying."

Since most reasonable people would not take my post to be factual representation of JeffJ's actual words, and would instead understand that my words were an attempt at satirical humor then I fail to see any guilt on my part.

"Only be Rogers Cadenhead keeps it that way. If he were to change it tomorrow to ban opposing views, it would suck, but it would also be his right to do so."

I am really glad that you recognize the benefits of balanced debate. Please also understand that the airwaves are not private they are public, not unlike say a public sidewalk. Is any of this sinking in?

For argument's sake imagine that big corporations buy all the radio stations. They then can present only what they wish and obviously it would be a message that benefits themselves.
In the USA we had almost that bad of a situation during the run up to the Iraq WAr, an opposition voice in every major city could have presented opposing views (which would have disputed the lies of teh Bush administration) and convinced enough people that there was no need for an invasion. Over 4000 soldiers would still be alive and our economy would not be in the toilet right now.
Broadcasters managed fine when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.
Americans own the air waves and we need truthful news, a monopoly of right wing liars prevents the people from receiving accurate information. Therefore is is important that even if it makes the righties mad, even if it makes the right wing talkers mad, even if it makes the owners of those radio stations.....we need some sort of a system in place to prevent another disaster like the Iraq invasion.

"Most of us are able to make these distinctions every day without any help from a Fairness Doctrine."

Obviously not true or GWB would never have been president and he wouldn't have been able to sell his unnecessary war. That is the point of the fairness doctrine, people given one sided information don't have any way of knowing it is one sided. Most viewers of Fox News actually believe what those liars are telling them.

They then can present only what they wish and obviously it would be a message that benefits themselves.

Only if what they put on the air generates listenership. They can't put squat on the air without advertising revenues. They can't generate advertising revenues without listenership. In short, rigthwing talk dominates the airwaves because it generates listenership.

Broadcasters managed fine when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

What? AM radio was on its death bed. Lifting the FD is what saved the AM radio band.

Therefore is is important that even if it makes the righties mad, even if it makes the right wing talkers mad, even if it makes the owners of those radio stations

Translation: I want liberal talk on the air. Despite an enormous infusion of donations, Air America is a failing proposition. The most popular liberal talk show host has 1/10 the listenership of Rush Limbaugh. In short, it's obvious that liberal talk can't compete with conservative talk, therefore we must use the power of government to shut up conservative talk. After all, we know what's best and only our opinion of right and wrong is what matters.

Obviously not true or GWB would never have been president and he wouldn't have been able to sell his unnecessary war.

That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Get over yourself. You act as if everybody in this country, except for yourself and those who share your worldview, are complete and utter idiots incapable of independent thought.

people given one sided information don't have any way of knowing it is one sided.

What? "The Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies."

"Conservatism works every time it's tried."

"Etc."

That's the one nice thing about the opinion format - the broadcasters proudly wear their biases on their sleeves. I find biased journalists pretending to be objective (a wolf in sheep's clothing) to be far more dangerous. Rush has 20 million listeners per week and each and every one of them knows that his views are one-sided - he announces he's a conservative every chance he gets.

Let the market decide which radio shows survive and which don't.

Yes indeed my belief that who does not support something like a fairness doctrine is in fact supporting lies and liars.

No. What we are supporting is allowing the people, via their radio dials, to dictate what's on the air. Afterall, they are public airwaves.

Most viewers of Fox News actually believe what those liars are telling them.

Danni,

See MrFair's comments as a response to your typical paranoid liberal rant suggestion.....

It's up to the individual to decide what is truth and what is BS. Most of us are able to make these distinctions every day without any help from a Fairness Doctrine.

You see, once again, you fail to see that we can make decisions for ourselves.

Well, at least most of us can....

Danni -- in fairness (ahem) the Fairness doctrine should also apply to newspapers, magazines, blogs, movies, TV, etc. if we demand a perfectly homogenized, unbiased world.

You have to agree, right? If not, why single out radio? Could it be because that is the one single media element that the right wing dominates?

Nah -- that couldn't be it.

If the airwaves are public and we need "fairness" (sic), what about music?

Is it fair to have 6 radio stations playing Rockn'Roll and only 1 playing polkas? That isn't "fair". What about the silent masses who love polkas? They are being unfairly under-represented.

What about the major TV networks? Those are public airwaves too. Shouldn't the government simply dictate their schedule to them to make sure their lineup is "fair" and all-inclusive?

I know, maybe we should just have the government run all of our media. It would be the '1984' Utopian wet-dream for all 'Fairness Doctrine' supporters.

"Is it fair to have 6 radio stations playing Rockn'Roll and only 1 playing polkas? That isn't "fair"

And that's a stupid analogy. Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better. Democracy does not require that polka music fans like yourself are equally represented on the radio dial.

What about the 'public' education system?

Shouldn't conservatives have just as much control and influence over it as liberals? Forget the fact that liberals flock to the acedemia in far greater numbers and as such, instituting fairness would actually result in inserting Conservatives who are less qualified than some of their liberal counterparts. We need 'fairness', damnit!

We, the public, own the public education system every bit as much as we do the airwaves.

Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better

True. But if the people don't want to hear a specific view, is it the government's place to shove it down their throat?

And Jeff blows straw all over this thread.

And that's a stupid analogy.

It's not stupid at all. You and your ilk are arbitrarily deciding what's best for everybody else and are doing so under the false pretenses of "fairness" and "publicly owned airwaves". However, you are limiting your application of 'fairness' to the one venue where views you dislike are dominant.

Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better.

The ability to hear a broad variety of views has never been greater. We have countless print publications in a wide array of formats. We have radio, TV, satellite radio, cable TV, the internet, etc.

You guys don't need to shut down the talk radio format. You may actually crave a balanced format, but you know damn well that in application, FD will effectively kill the talk radio format; which is ultimately what you are stiving for.

"But if the people don't want to hear a specific view, is it the government's place to shove it down their throat?"

Speaking of straw, where did you get that? Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to anything. Making diverse views accessible is the issue.

And Jeff blows straw all over this thread.

And Bill can't refute Jeff's points so he simply pooh poohs them.

"It's not stupid at all. You and your ilk are arbitrarily deciding what's best for everybody else and are doing so under the false pretenses of "fairness" and "publicly owned airwaves". However, you are limiting your application of 'fairness' to the one venue where views you dislike are dominant."

Bullshit. Comparing the public interest in promoting democracy to the interest of polka music lovers is fucking asinine.

Making diverse views accessible is the issue.

And your mechanism for doing so kills the talk format.

How convenient.

Democracy requires an informed population that can hear a broad variety of views, the more, the better.

And shutting someone up is accomplishing this??

Comparing the public interest in promoting democracy

I love how you feel that you get to define terms.

Since when is killing the talk format "promoting Democracy"?

You are just pissed off that my supposed strawmen are the logical application of a policy that you are clamoring for.

Oh, and why single out opinion and editorials?

What about how we go about deciding what does and doesn't get reported, on the public airwaves, as news?

Oh yeah, with the exception of talk radio, it's a well-documented fact that a majority of those who are in just about all other mediums are liberals and also happen to be deciding what is and isn't newsworthy. We can't have "fairness" on news reporting can we?

The public airwaves are owned by the public, and the public has the sole right to decide how those airwaves are used, not Clear Channel or Fox News or dittoheads.

And that's just too fucking bad for corporate America and their shills.

What about public universities?

I saw a stat that the ratio of liberal to conservative guest speakers is about 11-1.

Should the government step in and demand fairness at our public universities? I mean, we need a wide range of views to be heard in order to promote Democracy, don't we?

The public airwaves are owned by the public, and the public has the sole right to decide how those airwaves are used, not Clear Channel or Fox News or dittoheads.

And that's just too fucking bad for corporate America and their shills.

And we have the perfect mechanism in place for 'the public' to decide. It's called free market competition. The formats that generate listenership prevail because that is what a majority of 'the public' wants.

And that's just too fucking bad for undesirable liberal talk shows and their bitter shills.

In application, the Fairness Doctrine shuts up opinions that a tyrannical minority don't like.

It's too fucking bad for you elitist shits that formats you advocate don't resonate with 'the public'. Deal with it.

tyrannical minority doesn't like.

"Since when is killing the talk format "promoting Democracy"?

Since when is a choice between Hannity and Limbaugh, between Boortz and Beck and Ingraham and Savage and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

Corporate control of the public airwaves is only in the interests of corporations, not democracy, not the public.

I just don't see what's wrong with the EIB, the Excrement in Broadcasting network.

"It's called free market competition. "

Horseshit. The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations. Free market my ass.

....and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

LOL

HUGE ISSUES.

I don't particularly care for them either but I don't want to shut them up either.

you do

Since when is a choice between Hannity and Limbaugh, between Boortz and Beck and Ingraham and Savage and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

Given that it's what 'the people' want, I'd say it's a very intelligent use of the public's resources.

Corporate control of the public airwaves is only in the interests of corporations, not democracy, not the public.

Bullshit. Corporate control means they have to compete for listenership. If they don't play what the 'the public' wants to hear, they lose out to a competitor that does. The process is the very essence of Democracy and it most certainly serves the interests of 'the public' - what the public wants to hear is what gets airtime.

What you want obviously isn't what 'the public' wants.

Tough shit.

"It's too fucking bad for you elitist shits that formats you advocate don't resonate with 'the public'. Deal with it."

Too bad the Fairness Doctrine is coming back and you rightwing shitstains will lose your monopoly. Tough shit.

The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations. Free market my ass.

Look, I agree that is concerning but let me ask you something.....has Air America been somehow affected by that? Has their acceptance or success/failure been impacted by the fact that the broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations?

Horseshit. The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations. Free market my ass.

I have a lot more patience for the argument against media consolidation.

And yes, it still is a free market, your conspiratorial rants notwithstanding.

I don't care if the broadcast media market was owned by 2 corporations, if they aren't playing what 'the public' wants to hear, they won't have listenership and thus advertising revenues.

In broadcast media, ratings rule the roost, much to your chagrin.

Too bad the Fairness Doctrine is coming back and you rightwing shitstains will lose your monopoly. Tough shit.

Monopoly my ass.

Create a format that the public wants and you'd have an audience too.

I love when petty tyrants celebrate the government censorship of opinions they disagree with.

Making diverse views accessible is the issue.

They are accessible. Can you give an example of anyone being denied an FCC license because of they were left? Has a station ever had its license revoked because of its views?

It's not up to the government to ensure that losing stations that can't hold listeners get their message out.

"Please also understand that the airwaves are not private they are public, not unlike say a public sidewalk. Is any of this sinking in?" -- Posted by Salaryman

I am glad you brought up the whole "public place" thing, especially with the public sidewalk analogy.

On a public sidewalk I can (without restriction by the government):

a) tell the truth
b) tell a lie
c) give my opinion

On a public sidewalk I do NOT however, have to find someone to rebut me before I am allowed to speak.

Since you brought up the sidewalk as a supporting analogy for your position on this subject, I figured I would point out that it really doesn't support your position at all.

The term "public" is not synonymous with censorship or dictatorial regulation. The First Amendment as a, matter of fact, limits the government... not us.

"I don't particularly care for them either but I don't want to shut them up either.

you do"

I don't want to shut up anybody, Eberly. I'd like to see a hundred points of view from far left to far right. Now there is only one point of view, the HannityLimBaughIngraham, etc., point of view.

Oh, and Bill....

Don't celebrate too soon.

Talk radio is very popular and a resurrection of the Censorship Doctrine will be much harder than you think.

When the letters and petitions come into Congress by the tens of millions you can bet that even your beloved Democratic tyrants will think twice before royally pissing off their constituency.

If it's tried and fails as a result of the backlash, I will laugh awfully hard at all of you petty tyrants trying to squelch opinion that you disagree with.

Since when is a choice between Hannity and Limbaugh, between Boortz and Beck and Ingraham and Savage and every other fucking knuckledragging shithead an intelligent use of the public's resources?

I personally don't feel it is. I agree with you there. That's why I don't listen to them. But I will not be so arrogant as to sit here and tell anyone else they do not have the right to listen to people whom I consider to be idiots. NOr will I tell them that they have to listen to an opposing view if they don't want to. That's none of my fucking business who people want or not want to listen to.

I don't want to shut up anybody, Eberly. I'd like to see a hundred points of view from far left to far right. Now there is only one point of view, the HannityLimBaughIngraham, etc., point of view.

I believe you.

However, your mechanism for achieving this (FD) when applied has the effect of killing talk radio and shutting up Conservative opinion.

The fact is, we have more divergent views available to us than ever before. You simply don't need to squelch the conservative talk format in order to achieve 'fairness'.

I don't want to shut up anybody, Eberly.

From the article..

Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

That itself might be paranoia and I will freely admit that I don't know how it would play out so I am not exactly concerned about it.

The broadcast media is owned by a handful of corporations.

And they force people to tune in and listen so that they can tell the advertisers they have the ratings needed to justify their ad rates.

LOL

That's why I don't listen to them.

Excellent solution!!!!

Works for me. I haven't listened to any of them for some time.

"I don't care if the broadcast media market was owned by 2 corporations,"

Of course you don't.

It's one thing to have a "free market" in toothpaste.

It's quite another thing, to apply that to the media by which citizens in a democratic society get the information necessary to make informed decisions and informed votes.

So another over reach by the Congress.

I suggest sending email now to your congress person to vote this bill down.

Another way to quelch free speech and free markets.

If Air America would do a better job--none of this would be occurring.

I'd like to see a hundred points of view from far left to far right.

Then contact the people you want to listen to and encourage them to get a radio station.

Actually, Null, you don't want to hear these points of view yourself -- you want to force everyone to listen to them. It's very similiar, if not identical to the prayer in school issue. No one can stop kids from praying in school. But the fundies want forced prayer in school. It's not for the benefit of their kids, but to expose other kids to prayer. Your stance on the fairness doctrine is identical. You can find your points of view if you want. But you want them forced on others.

Bill,

You are conveniently ignoring a lot of points being made and are simply spouting the same rhetoric about citizens in a democratic society getting the information necessary to participate in the process.

You have yet to demonstrate in any way how FD accomplishes this (it doesn't). In fact, all it does is shut up Conservative talk.

"And they force people to tune in and listen so that they can tell the advertisers they have the ratings needed to justify their ad rates.

LOL"

I guess your point is that media monopolies are good, correct? The fewer the number of corporations that own the media, the better for democracy, right?

My point of view is that anyone with a radio show that people want to listen to can get it aired. If it is good enough, people will listen. If it's not, it'll die.

My POV could not be simpler.

"Actually, Null, you don't want to hear these points of view yourself -- you want to force everyone to listen to them. "

Don't tell me what I want. I'll tell you what I want. I want for myself, and for any other citizen, to have easy access to a wide diversity of views, not the RushHannityIngrahamSavage point of view.

I guess you're happy with having only one choice on the radio.

I guess your point is that media monopolies are good, correct?

Null, you've used the word 'strawman' more than anyone on this thread.

Now show me where I've even come close to suggesting that media monopolies are good. When you can't, look in the mirror at the real strawman.

I'll tell you what I want

I know. You've made it clear that you want everyone to listen to all points of view, which you said you want to listen to.

So I stand by my statement. YOu want everyone to listen to what you want listen to.

I guess you're happy with having only one choice on the radio.

You are having a very difficult time grokking what I am happy with. Being a nice guy, I'll repeat it one more time. If you still can't get it, I can't help.

I am happy with letting market forces dictate what is on the radio.

Get it?

"I am happy with letting market forces dictate what is on the radio.

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

It's quite another thing, to apply that to the media by which citizens in a democratic society get the information necessary to make informed decisions and informed votes.
Posted by nullifidian

Null: You say "media" but I think you mean "right-wing radio." Newsflash: people have many media outlets from which to obtain information and cross-check the facts. Most people do it all the time.

I don't listen to Rush or Franken but I sure as hell don't want either of them muzzled in any way.

Take a deep breath, sit down.

"I am happy with letting market forces dictate what is on the radio.

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

Null,

I am sure you just weren't thinking about your choice of words, and you probably didn't mean this the way it came out... but your above statement came across about as intelligent as a back-woods West Virginia hick. Or to put it another way, about as intelligent as libs tend to portray GWB.

Democracy IS government by the people. That is to say, the people decide the government's job.

The Market as referenced in "free market" IS simply demand for a particular product. Who decides demand? The people do.

Democracy and the market are synonymous. Both are determined by the people and what the people want.

In light of this, your statement actually reads:

"How the people want to be governed is too important to be decided by what the people want."

That is just sheer idiocy, but again, I am pretty sure you didn't mean to say what you actually said.

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

You have still yet to show how killing talk radio (conservative and to a much smaller extent liberal talk) is good for Democracy. This is what FD does when applied. I've pointed this out several times yet you continue to run from it.

Democracy?

Since when does putting the interests of the Democratic party above public interest promoting Democracy?

Lastly, here in the Metro Detroit area from noon to 3 we have Rush on AM760 and we have Thom Hartmann (a devout liberal) on AM1310. That's the essence of FD in a free market minus all of the draconian government measures.

Also, in the information age people have easy access to a myriad of opinion. Again, you don't need to kill conservative talk.

Howard Stern went off to satellite radio, but I think he was possibly the one real Limbaugh analog on the Left.

His trouble: unlike Rush (admittedly an obnoxious blowhard) Howard couldn't resist his inner 14-year-old and just had to push the decency limits all the time. But from a political standpoint he could be pretty serious and insightful. When he wasn't ogling somebody's tits.

The only guy now who seems as clever and/or popular is probably Jon Stewart but he's on cable TV and not Radio. HEY there's an idea!

There's your free market, Null. (And I want a % commission for my idea, should Stewart open a Rush-like radio show.)

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-26 05:58 PM

Null--I know you are smarter than this statement.

You are talking about China-type gov't run radio.

Some gov't gas bag deciding what is allowed to be heard on the radio--or any medium for that matter.

Do you really mean what you posted?

Democracy is the people and free markets go hand in hand.

"I am sure you just weren't thinking about your choice of words, and you probably didn't mean this the way it came out... but your above statement came across about as intelligent as a back-woods West Virginia hick."

Fuck off, you condescending jackass.

"Democracy and the market are synonymous."

Total horseshit. This is the crap that free market fundies are always trying to bamboozle people with. Free markets lead to monopolized markets. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"You are talking about China-type gov't run radio."

You're an idiot, Murphy. Talk about blowing straw!

Some gov't gas bag deciding what is allowed to be heard on the radio--or any medium for that matter.
Posted by MURPHY

We could get Bruno Kirby from "Good Morning Vietnam." He actually did require polkas to be played and was into all kinda censorship.

"Democracy is the people and free markets go hand in hand."

Free markets in commodities like toothpaste have nothing to do with democracy, unless you think democracy means "one dollar, one vote."

Free markets lead to monopolized markets. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Then you clearly don't understand how ratings impact radio.

The entire industry is completely depnendent upon listenership - they have to produce a product that 'the public' wants to hear or 'the public' simply listens to something else. That is NOT a monopoly in any way shape or form and it's disingenuous of you to characterize it as such.

Also, conservative talk doesn't just compete with liberal talk; it competes with sports talk, FM music stations, CD's, satellite radio and silence. It's successful because the public demands it via their radio dials.

Again, please explain how taking that venue away from the public is good for Democracy.

"Democracy is the people and free markets go hand in hand."

I suppose this individual hasn't looked to hard at our global market and how our laws of democracy are being changed away from the will of the people to suit the free market rich.

Just another cowtowing puppet who never takes the time or effort to actually understand what is being fed to him by the media corpo elite.

"Again, where you live,,, how many AM & FM stations can you pick up?"

Quite a few, but I don't listen to radio much these days. After all, there's only one point of view.

And don't tell me the existence of NPR and a couple of low-powered college radio stations contradict that in any meaningful way.

Null --you come off as a fascist--you want the gov't into everything--because you are a minority anarchist who couldn't get anyone to pay attention to your thoughts and fatal ideas for our country.

The radio is not a monopoly--do you even understand the concept?

No one is forcing anyone to listen to any one station.

If people DO listen, then the person stays on the radio.

If no one listens to the person--they change the host.

They are driven by ratings and ad money. If no one is listening--no money.

Rush has like 20 million listeners EVERY WEEK.

If Rush only had 1 million every week--he's be on another time--like 1 AM or off the radio.

Allowing the gov't to dictate what can be heard on anything is Bullshit and a danger to our country.

Next they will do TV, the newspaper, then the internet.

They are heading for China-style media rule--do you want that Null?

Typical, libs can't compete so they want the Big Daddy Government to force the market to let them play.

One thing I left out of my analysis is that you also referenced the "public airwaves". Public, in this case, meaning "owned by the people for the people's use". With this in mind, your revised statement reads:

"The way the people want to be governed is too important to let the people decide what they want to hear on the airwaves that the people own."

Of course Null, I could be wrong. You could have meant exactly what you said as a bit of Orwellian double-speak. In which case a little more translation is needed to get to the truth of what you are saying since the statement as made is contraditory to itself.

In translated Orwellian this would mean:

"The people are stupid and don't know what they want, so it is up to us to limit what they can say in a public forum, and instead dictate what they want, otherwise they might start wanting things that goes against what WE want them to have."

"Null --you come off as a fascist--you want the gov't into everything--because you are a minority anarchist who couldn't get anyone to pay attention to your thoughts and fatal ideas for our country."

Gee, Murphy, make up your mind. One day I'm a Marxist, the next a fascist, and then a "minority anarchist." Do you have any clue as to the meaning of those labels?

"They are heading for China-style media rule--do you want that Null?"

You mean like, only one point of view in the media? Like American talk radio? No, I don't want that. Why do you?

And don't tell me the existence of NPR and a couple of low-powered college radio stations contradict that in any meaningful way.
Posted by nullifidian

So you are forced to hear right-wing radio and therefore democracy is in danger because you are uninformed or informed with a bias? What a fucking bucket of horseshit.

Go read a paper or a journal or see cable TV or get on the Internet. Cheeses K. Reist!!

And yes NPR really is a good source. Why the hell are you slagging them off??

Here's a synopsis of Null's points in favor of FD:

1. In the name of Democracy, we need easy access to a wide variety of views.

In the age of information we do have easy access to a wide variety of views. Talk radio is far from the only game in town. Strike 1 agaist Null's advocacy of FD.

2. A wide variety of views is in the best interest of the public

It's up to the public to decide their own best interest. It's NOT up to a handful of elites to make that decision for them. The public wants conservative talk, therefore providing it is in their best interest. Strike 2 against Null's advocacy of FD.

3. Null likes to hear as many views as possible.

However, the mechanism he advocates stifles some of those very viewpoints he so desperately wants to hear, and it does so in a very draconian and tyrannical manner. Strike 3 against Null's advocacy of FD.

4. Null favors government-imposed fairness in talk because 'the people' own the airwaves.

However, Null would NEVER favor such a doctrine in the public education system - K-12 and public universities. Why the selective standard? The public owns the public education system every bit as much as it does the airwaves. Going further, impressionable children are required by law to attend school. Nobody is required by law to listen to the radio. I don't know if this is Strike 4 for Null, but it's certainly a peculiar double-standard on his part.

Fuck off, you condescending jackass.

Condescending? I would classify someone labelling people with whom he disagrees as "knuckle-draggers and corporate shills" as condescending. Pot meet kettle.

"Public, in this case, meaning "owned by the people for the people's use".

Yep, they are public airwaves. Which means the public through its elected representatives can determine who uses the airwaves, how they use the airwaves, how much they pay for that use, etc. Just like any other public resource.

"One day I'm a Marxist, the next a fascist, and then a "minority anarchist.""

A facist minority Marxist with anarchist tendencies.

"You mean like, only one point of view in the media? Like American talk radio? No, I don't want that. Why do you?"

What are you talking about, I tune into NPR all the time, plus most rock stations are liberal views, and news. To say its on point of view is....well its down right Lennist.

You mean like, only one point of view in the media? Like American talk radio? No, I don't want that. Why do you?

Posted by nullifidian

Do you ***really*** not see an issue with this???

It's like saying, "you're going to allow person X live in your house because you own the only house and X needs a place to stay." All the while disregarding all the other land a house could be built upon.

Nothing precludes the left from starting their OWN radio stations except that there's likely not enough demand for liberal radio to make it profitable (as we've seen with Air America). If libs want talk radio, by all means, but DO NOT force it upon independent radio owners even if they are granted a license to use those airwaves. Check out your AM band -- there are PLENTY of frequencies to use without occupying others' frequencies.

You might say my analogy to forcing someone to live with you is NOT analogous. But after all, your landowning rights are nothing more than a license as well. If you don't believe me, then stop paying your taxes.

I suppose this individual hasn't looked to hard at our global market and how our laws of democracy are being changed away from the will of the people to suit the free market rich.

Get your terms straight. What you describe isn't free market.

What you describe is one of several things:

Oligarchy - rule by an elite few (in this case it would be corporate leaders)

Plutocracy - rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth (again corporate leaders)

Or Puppet State - that is nominally independent, but in reality, under the control of another power (once again corporate leaders)

All of which could be summed up in a new government type: Corporatocracy

This has nothing to do with the free market (which is simply the law of supply and demand), and you don't serve yourself well (or anyone else for that matter) by confusing the two.

Null I don't recall calling YOU a Marxist. You might be a Marxist, I don't know you well enough. But, maybe you are.

But YOU want to vote for the naked Marxist --Obama--now he's a Marxist!

SomeGuy--

I might agree with you about the lib comment--but there are a lot of Repubs that are thinking of voting for this bill too.

The Congress is pissed off at the populace for killing the Dubai Ports deal and Immigration Bill.

And this was due to conservative talk radio.

This FD bill is for expansion of gov't control over the airwaves. It is dangerous and bullshit.

Murphy,

I'm not sure what Republicans you're talking about, but liberals DO NOT equal Democrats. A liberal can be a Republican...

Liberals believe in Big Daddy Government to save them -- some Republicans buy into that and, hence, they're liberals. Conservatives, however, do not. And conservatives DO NOT equal Republicans.

We have more media options than ever before. We have extremely easy access to countless viewpoints, yet these people want to kill a venue that has the temerity to express an opinion that they disagree with.

"So you are forced to hear right-wing radio and therefore democracy is in danger because you are uninformed or informed with a bias? What a fucking bucket of horseshit."

I'm not forced to hear anything, you moron. I said above I don't listen, and I don't listen because there is only one point of view.

And if think one point of view is Democratic, you would love North Korean radio.

I've gotta run - I've got to go to my son's baseball game.

I'll try to check back in later.

"Null I don't recall calling YOU a Marxist. You might be a Marxist, I don't know you well enough. But, maybe you are.

But YOU want to vote for the naked Marxist --Obama--now he's a Marxist!"

If Obama is a Marxist, then I'm the Easter Bunny.

I'm not forced to hear anything, you moron.
Posted by nullifidian

Personal attack - he must've lost faith in his weak argument. I'm outta here - gonna go enjoy the many non-right-wing stations on the car radio.

And if think one point of view is Democratic, you would love North Korean radio.

Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, your logic MIGHT work if the U.S. had ONLY one radio station and not other mediums for free speech. But, of course, the U.S. has more than one radio station. And nor is it limited to one medium for free speech.

Listen to morning rock shows to get some liberal stuff.

It will be funny if morning rock shows become forced to have Rush (not the band, but Limbaugh!) on their radio shows!!!!!! That would be a hoot and something Nulli clearly supports!

And if think one point of view is Democratic, you would love North Korean radio.

Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, your logic MIGHT work if the U.S. had ONLY one radio station and not other mediums for free speech. But, of course, the U.S. has more than one radio station. And nor is it limited to one medium for free speech.

Listen to morning rock shows to get some liberal stuff.

It will be funny if morning rock shows become forced to have Rush (not the band, but Limbaugh!) on their radio shows!!!!!! That would be a hoot and something Nulli clearly supports!

"it is FAST becoming the best debate thread in the Retort's HISTORY!!!"

All 3 days of your history?

Hmmm...have you ever posted on the Drudge Retort before, and if so, under what name(s)?

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate

Democracy is the government telling radio stations what they have to broadcast? I thought that was called a dictatorship.

I'm only talking about talk radio here.

Air America came on the radio here in Democrat, liberal Los Angeles about two years ago and died a slow death. No one listened to it. I listened for awhile and had a couple talk show hosts on there I kind of liked but Air America just wasn't that great and got boring after awhile.

Doug McIntyre (KABC), John and Ken (KFI), Bill Handle (KFI) and a few others -- all local talk radio hosts and who are slightly conservative and tilt a little to the right -- corner the local radio market in SoCal. None of them are the radical pro-Bush types like Hannity and Rush but they are conservative. Air America fizzled right away. People just didn't want to listen to them and they weren't entertaining either.

Give us all a choice and just let the people decide where to turn the dial on their radio. No one should be forced into equal time for both sides. If one side presents a better show than the other side then they will get the largest share of the audience.

Don't know about other states, but I don't think it's the Rush Limbaugh's and Hannity's who get the largest share on the radio in each state but rather everyone's favorite local talk show hosts. That's how it is in California, anyway.

Californians like to hear national news and issues discussed on talk radio but we also want to hear about California's politics and issues which personally affect us in our state. Guess it's probably the same for folks who listen to their favorite local talk radio hosts in Missouri, Oregon, and all the way from New York to Texas. It's usually your local talk radio hosts who determine the ratings.

"John and Ken" rule the airways! Yeah!

I'm not sure what Republicans you're talking about, but liberals DO NOT equal Democrats. A liberal can be a Republican...

Liberals believe in Big Daddy Government to save them -- some Republicans buy into that and, hence, they're liberals. Conservatives, however, do not. And conservatives DO NOT equal Republicans.

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-26 06:52 PM

Now I agree with that indeed! Total truth there!

This whole thing is because the populace rose up and made Congress' miserable over the Dubai and Immigration bills. They were bashed over the head with emails and phone calls and letters and the irate people were not going to put up with it.

The Congress are sooooo short-sighted. They are going to have the ire of Americans again over this Bill too! lol... More head bashing ahead.

And if think one point of view is Democratic, you would love North Korean radio.

When the one point of view is decided by a dictator, it isn't democracy.

When the one point of view is decided by the demands of the people, then it IS a democracy.

You just seem to have a fundamental confusion about what is possible under a democracy and what governs it. You are also confused on a basic level on the law of supply and demand.

The radio is driven by dollars from advertisers. Advertisers make their money on the people. Advertisers will spend their money on the advertising market that people flock to.

Air America went under because it just didn't draw the interest of enough people.

Conservative talk thrives because it DOES draw a lot of people.

Hence, the people decide what they want to hear more of simply by tuning in. THAT is democracy at it's finest.

"When the one point of view is decided by the demands of the people, then it IS a democracy."

If the majority of the people dictate one point of view that's the tyranny of the majority. It may be democratic, in a cheap sort of way, but simple majority rule is not what the great advocates of democracy have thought about it historically.

and I don't listen because there is only one point of view.

And if think one point of view is Democratic, you would love North Korean radio.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-26 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag

Null--that is the point--YOU are not listening to the radio to even FIND a station host you agree with.

There are hundreds of different views and hosts and formats to listen to.

And no one is saying--except for you --that we should all listen to some gas bag POV--YOURS!

You are the one saying we should be forced to listen to your views as you see fit.

Insert YOU with CONGRESS FD BILL...

NUll--there are hundreds of stations out there with hundreds of POV!

You are fixated on Hannity and Rush types--but they are not the end all to be all.

Just admit YOU want these guys shut down and we can conclude you have dictatorial leanings over the populace to dictate what we should have on teh radio.

You probably want the religious stations to have Fairness by allowing gays and athiests forced access to their programming too.

Is this true? Do you think this as well Null?

James Dean - I think you might need to retire for the evening and settle down with a good mirror.

Two questions, Null:

Do you think all media should fall under the fairness doctrine, or only radio?

Who decides what is 'fair' or an opposing POV? If forced to, a radio station may give an opposing POV, but there may be some who do not feel it is 'opposing enough' so to speak. Does the government then step in and decide what a balanced curriculum is? That's scary as hell.

James Dean - I think you might need to retire for the evening and settle down with a good mirror.

I am just getting started as a GREAT jounalist!

FACTALOOZA!

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-06-26 07:25 PM |
=========
I broke this story and it is fast becoming the BEST debating thread in the HISTORY of the Retort...

FACT!!!

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-06-26 06:51 PM
==========
I am on the TOP of the wealth chart!

FACT!

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-06-26 06:05 PM

... am an independently wealthy business owner in New England...

...just getting started as a great journalist. Right.

LOL

I am just getting started as a GREAT jounalist!

FACTALOOZA!

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-06-26 07:25 PM

Why do people feel it is necessary to anonymously try to impress complete strangers in cyberspace? BTW, how does one get started as a great anything?

"No shit. Where'd this clown come from?"

He's that JimmyMac fucker who is suspended.

He's that JimmyMac fucker who is suspended.

Bingo. Good catch

Democracy is too important to let the market dictate what views will be aired and which will not on the public airwaves.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-26 05:58 PM

Null--I know you are smarter than this statement.

Posted by MURPHY

NO, he ABSOLUTELY ISN'T SMART....he's a moron. Take him to task for what he speaks and he demands your home address (so he can appear and show you how lucky you are that you aren't telling him in person. NULLandVOID is all he is.

"Two questions, Null: "

Those are good questions, Goatman, and I don't claim to have all the answers. There is no perfect system that will satisfy everyone. Maybe there are alternative regulatory regimes that are superior to the Fairness Doctrine.

Both FM and AM radio has sucked for a long time. Some of us remember when FM wasn't homogenized corporate sludge.

"Not MY history, the RETORT's history!"

How would you know, unless you'd been on here longer than 3 days? Who were you for all the other days?

Oh, and please make it a FACT!

Some of us remember when FM wasn't homogenized corporate sludge.

Yes. I was fortunate enough to be coming of age exactly the same time FM was. It was fun.

"Why do people feel it is necessary to anonymously try to impress complete strangers in cyberspace?"

You mean like, post pictures of their cars?

"FACT!!!!!!

Posted by James_Dean AKA JimmyMac "

Hey dumbass, Rcade has expelled people on suspension who created new handles. FACT!

James,
You couldn't buy Aids in Haiti.

How would you know, unless you'd been on here longer than 3 days?

The guy's a prick, but in all fairness, I lurked here for over a year before I became active.

But I don't buy his big business owner in NE, new journalist, land in bahamas for a second. People who fit that bill don't join a blog and start bragging about it.

We have more media options than ever before.

Really????

How many people own the majority of the airways?????

If the majority of the people dictate one point of view that's the tyranny of the majority.

A fair enough point.

However, what you are advocating is tyranny of the minority.

Of the 2 the former is more Democratic.

You are also confused on a basic level on the law of supply and demand.

The law of supply and demand has nothing to do with democracy and this simple fact seems to keep you convoluted in some economic dementia of governing.

Hence, the people decide what they want to hear more of simply by tuning in. THAT is democracy at it's finest.

Wow!

So monopolies are the finest point of democracy.

I see your lack of understanding that is for sure.

So monopolies are the finest point of democracy.

Are you suggesting that if there were a more diverse ownership of the media then there would be more options and thus, no need for the fairness doctrine?

If we have a monopoly issue with regard to media ownership then we have an anti-trust problem.

You have to be completely out of your mind to suggest that a solution would be to go to a local radio station and tell them they have to remove a program off the air that generates revenue and replace it with something else that doesn't.

the public would never stand for it.

don't get me wrong, I agree that media ownership should be more diverse.

If the majority of the people dictate one point of view that's the tyranny of the majority. It may be democratic, in a cheap sort of way, but simple majority rule is not what the great advocates of democracy have thought about it historically.

Sorry but the idea of our media being democratic is contrary to the very idea of freedom of speech.

The media has first amendment rights to keep it from being democratic, and the very fact that this economic pursuit of profit in media is ruining the very aspect of the purpose of the media.

Too few owners in the media is not democratic and the fact that people here are arguing about this issue economically shows how truely naive they are as to the media's purpose.

Really????

How many people own the majority of the airways?????

Yes, really. media also comes in the form of papers, magazines, internet, etc.

But you knew that, didn't you?

Local radio stations??????

Wow, how truely naive.

How many local radio stations are their in new york? How many in seattle? Oops, in seattle we have many many radio stations but the one fact glares, the majority is owned by one.

Go figure.

"Why are you asking personal questions?

Personal questions? What's personal about "are you trying to mislead us that you're not also a former poster"?

"That is against the rules no?"

Not at all. In fact, if you've blogged under a different name, and aren't willing to 'fess up to it, that makes you a troll.

When has Rush Limbaugh ever criticized a large corporation?

Just a rhetorical question, really, as I can't think of one instance. Ever.

Wow, how truely naive.

How many local radio stations are their in new york?

Did I say locally owned?

Very shitty deflection idiot. Keep on not answering reasonable quesitons.

Eberly,

How ego naive of you to think I was responding to you!

And Eberly,

Local media is not necessarily locally owned.

Yes, really. media also comes in the form of papers, magazines, internet, etc.

Hmmmm!

Maybe regulating who can own avenues of the differing media outlets was a smart thing.

How ego naive of you to think I was responding to you!

yes, and accurate.

You and Nulli are obsessed with the ownership of media.....fair enough, I would prefer ownership be more diverse as well.

It doesn't mean the content would change though. I would gladly listen to something else.

I guess I am in a minority however.

Like our people to own arms, the media is our primary avenue or information of societal wrongs. With few owners allows those owners to move without the peoples knowledge.

Like our people to own arms, the media is our primary avenue or information of societal wrongs. With few owners allows those owners to move without the peoples knowledge.

Since Americans -- well, humans in general -- love the smell of blood, it is highly unlikely that the media will stop reporting it. Competition will make sure of that. In fact, I wish I could hear more good news stories.

Spud at one point supported the revival of the Fairness Doctrine but now feels that it's too late to close that can of worms again.

The effort spent here would be better utilised reversing over-concentration of media into too few hands.

But, of course, that's "off the table" fer Nancy P.

This effort will ultimately go nowhere.

Another Nancy peLOUSY idear.

Be Well.

If Rush Limbaugh were a baby seal, I'd apply for Canadian citizenship just to club his brains out.

Decentralizing media ownership should be a MAJOR goal of the next administration. But even if it were decentralized, there's not going to be liberal talk radio comparable to conservative talk radio unless it's forced through the so called Fairness Doctrine.

I think there's strong reasons for it too. The first that comes to mind is demographics. Second is the quality of the hosts. Like it or not, conservative radio can be entertaining EVEN IF you disagree with the message. The listenership is MASSIVE -- if you don't believe me, then ask yourself why Pelosi is so obsessed with controlling it.

Link explaining what the FCC permits as far as ownership of TV and radios stations in markets of various sizes. I don't see an issue with one company monopolizing the airwaves. There's plenty of room (and legal protection) for left leaning stations if they can just make them work. No further legislation is needed -- just good program directors that can capture an audience.

Decentralizing media ownership should be a MAJOR goal of the next administration.

What exactly is the problem? Review the FCC rules on this link and explain how they allow centralization of the media. Also, please cite a market that has a 'centralized' media.

But even if it were decentralized, there's not going to be liberal talk radio comparable to conservative talk radio unless it's forced through the so called Fairness Doctrine.

You are correct there. It's because people don't want to listen to it. But I don't think the solution is to force feed it to them like a goose whose liver is destined to become pate de fois gras. The solution is for better programming by the left media.

If Rush Limbaugh were a baby seal, I'd apply for Canadian citizenship just to club his brains out.

LOL. I would too! I can't stand that arrogant prick. But no matter my disdain for him, I would not want his voice stifled by the media. I'll do it myself with my station selector or on/off button.

Maybe the editorial page of the country's newspapers should have a fairness doctrine too. Hell, for that matter--so should members of Congress. For every time Nancy Pelosi opens her bloviating piehole, Republicans should demand equal air time. In fact, why have a majority and a minority in Congress at all? If Americans can't be trusted to listen to the right radio stations, how can we be trusted to elect people properly?

50/50.

Ah, I'm not worried. Given what Nancy and her boys have managed to do with the majority they've got, they'd be certain to screw up radio too. Which is fine with me--I have XM.

"Decentralizing media ownership should be a MAJOR goal of the next administration."

Finally a voice of reason from conservatives. But there are a few that are aware of the problem. William Safire, for one, led a campaign against lifting ownership restrictions.

It needs to go farther than that of course. Bust up the media cartel into a 100 pieces. In other words, restore a competitive free market, which is what conservatives like, right?

Sometimes it's helpful to provide nice pictures so conservatives can understand.

"I just bought land in outh Carolina and the Bahamas" did he say?

Well, talk about bad timing!

"Decentralizing media ownership should be a MAJOR goal of the next administration."

Finally a voice of reason from conservatives.

How do you de-centralize something that isn't centralized?

Null -- please name a market that has a centralized media. Then look at the link I posted a few posts upthread and tell me how that can be without running afoul of the FCC.

Look at the graph above, Goatman, and tell me the media industry isn't an oligopoly.

GoatMan,

I'm NOT FOR the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine wants to IMPOSE viewpoints on radio stations. That's BAD.

But I am for diversified ownership of media interests. In the 1800s the few who owned newspapers wielded GREAT power over the country because they were able to present their PREFERRED voices and there wasn't much else available.

I prefer diverse ownership (which in turn ensures diversity of viewpoints) where owners are FREE to put up whatever they want.

Although I disagree with Nulli about the Fairness Doctrine, I agree that consolidated ownership of the media is bad. There's a GREAT difference between the two topics.

As a consolidated ownership hypothetical example: I would NOT want the NY Times owning all the radio stations, newspapers, tv stations etc. I would NOT want only 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6 owning all these things. I'd want many many many. And if some of individual owners choose to play 100% conservative stuff then GREAT -- there will be offsetting information available.

I stand by my earlier assessment of AM radio though -- there are OTHER frequencies available for the left's consumption, but good luck on demand.

I looked at the link. It is not inconsistent with the link I posted. Please look at it and tell me how a single corporation could control the media or even get close to it.

GoatMan,

But I am for diversified ownership of media interests.

Apparently the FCC is for that too. That's why they have these rules in place:

"Apparently the FCC is for that too. That's why they have these rules in place:"

What are you talking about? The FCC wanted to lift ownership restrictions! It took a public outcry to shelve their project.

GoatMan,

It's not about a "single corporation" controlling ALL the media. Rather, it is about a FEW corporations controlling MOST of the media (barring the Internet). Read the wiki link I provided.

Well, Nulli, in fairness, it's not THAT bad, but I still think it's too concentrated.

From that Wiki article: "On June 2, 2003, FCC, in a 3-2 vote under Chairman Michael Powell, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area. The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period.

* Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.

* Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.

* All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and Internet services are now counted, weighted based on people's average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.

* Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for "public-interest" considerations.

The decision by the FCC was overturned by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the decision Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC in June, 2004. The Majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered the Commission to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits. The Supreme Court later turned down an appeal, so the ruling stands.[5]"

"Rather, it is about a FEW corporations controlling MOST of the media (barring the Internet). Read the wiki link I provided."

What are you talking about? The FCC wanted to lift ownership restrictions! It took a public outcry to shelve their project.

But it was shelved and the rules I posted a link to still apply. We are talking about what is, not what may have been.

It's not about a "single corporation" controlling ALL the media. Rather, it is about a FEW corporations controlling MOST of the media (barring the Internet). Read the wiki link I provided.

I did. It named 9 major media corporations (that's not consistent with the link Null provided, but I'll go with wiki since it actually named them.

I can name 4 major airlines. Three major phone companies. 4 or 5 major oil companies. Sounds like the media industry is doing better than them as far as competition goes.

BTW, did you read the link I provided? If so, how can one corporation control the media in any market? In large markets, one corporation cannot own even 20% of the radio stations.

(we need the fairness doctrine on the DR. I read eveyone elses links and reply, but they don't read mine. *grin*)

"For all their economic clout and cultural sway, the ten great multinationals profiled in our latest chart--AOL Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T and Liberty Media--rule the cosmos only at the moment. The media cartel that keeps us fully entertained and permanently half-informed is always growing here and shriveling there, with certain of its members bulking up while others slowly fall apart or get digested whole. But while the players tend to come and go--always with a few exceptions--the overall Leviathan itself keeps getting bigger, louder, brighter, forever taking up more time and space, in every street, in countless homes, in every other head."

Off to lunch. It ought to be good. Rig manager flew in today for a couple of days. The food's always better when he's here.

I'll check back when I return.

GoatMan,

Where are you for it to be lunchtime?

I don't think your comparisons to airlines, oil companies, phone companies is valid. We accept *more* centralization in those areas because it breeds efficiency (but of course some complain) and other reasons.

The difference with media is that we DO NOT need it to be "efficient" in the way of we think of efficiency with airliners (e.g., cost minimization). Rather, efficiency in media is diversity to help ensure a variety of viewpoints, and not merely the viewpoints of a few CEOs etc responsible for setting their media holdings' agendas.

But this can be achieved WITHOUT the Fairness Doctrine, but we still need to keep a close eye on the FCC to ensure they do NOT allow too much centralization (and I think they've already crossed the line but I don't think it's necessarily grotesque yet).

" If so, how can one corporation control the media in any market? "

It's not for lack of trying on the part of free market fundies to make that possible.

The consolidation is a natural reaction to the dwindling market/mind share that these "media" markets are experiencing.

Where are you for it to be lunchtime?

Night tour (6:00 - 6:00) on an offshore oil rig.

To complain about the consolidation of the old media is to complain about who gets to manufacture buggy whips.
It didn't happen as fast as the pundits (myself included), but it is happening, as we get more broadband.

Posted by AndreaMackris

Point taken, but I'm not convinced we're so far along in the *new* media that the buggy whips analogy is valid... yet. =)

But yeah, the Internet certainly broadens the medium and lessens concerns of consolidation as it has been traditionally known and experienced.

Regardless, I still don't want too much consolidation. And the Internet, unfortunately, is technologically vulnerable. For an example of its vulnerability, look at China's successful regulation of it. All it takes is rerouting some domain names to somewhere else like, say, government run media!

But this can be achieved WITHOUT the Fairness Doctrine, but we still need to keep a close eye on the FCC to ensure they do NOT allow too much centralization (and I think they've already crossed the line but I don't think it's necessarily grotesque yet).

Did you read the link I put up? If so, why do you still think we need the fairness doctrine? In NY, e.g., a corporation cannot hold even 20% of the market. Any radio station has a fair chance. All they need is an audience -- and I don't mean a captive one that the government forces on them. I mean an audience fairly won by good programming.

That is what the FD Congress wants--gov't run media on the radio.

The air waves do not belong to the stations that use them to broadcast. Those stations should be required to proved information that is reasonably honest and balanced which unfortunately the right wing talk stations simply do not do. If the fairness doctrine is brought back it will be because the right has abused the privelege they were granted when they were licensed to use OUR air waves. Even though a few rich bastards have contrived to own many radio stations and dramatically effect the outcomes of many elections in this country, it is not necessarily going to be allowed to continue that way. Iraq as an example proves there is far too much at stake to allow right wing propagandists to illinform voters without being forced to also provide honest contrasting arguments.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-25 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

So screw the first amendment too?

The left had their chance with AirAmerica. Obviously that went over well.

So because the left has NOTHING to add to talk radio we should shut down the radio stations because YOUR voice isn't popular?

Sounds like communisim to me.

What say you Danni?

I repeat(on why air america did not do well):

Because Air America is boring. They really don't say the outlandish and borderline criminal things as loudly, or as often, as extreme right wing radio does.

People are rubberneckers. We like to see a train wreck. Rush limbaugh IS that train wreck. So is American idol. Cops. Jerry springer, every reality TV show, ect ect.

The popularity of all of these shows is based on the level of insanity and stupidity achieved by the players/participants. It's amusing to the audience.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-06-26 08:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

right wing radio is a SIDE SHOW.

Hello alex...How's school?

When do you graduate?

right wing radio is a SIDE SHOW

Left wing radio is a NO SHOW.

Each has only themselves to blame.

Alexandrite,

Good point.

No one wants to hear the lecture on fiscal responsibility, either.

Hello alex...How's school?

When do you graduate?

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2008-06-27 12:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Don't be chummy with me. You shouldn't even be here IMO, because you were banned.

Stick to the topic and leave my personal life out of it.

Goat- Each has only themselves to blame.

Posted by goatman at 2008-06-27 12:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

AGREED!

"To complain about the consolidation of the old media is to complain about who gets to manufacture buggy whips."

Well in that case I would expect to see conservatives stop fighting so hard to lift ownership limits and cross-ownership restrictions, and for that matter, against the FD.

Maybe someone ought to inform conservatives that they are wasting their time fighting over buggy whips.

Because Air America is boring. They really don't say the outlandish and borderline criminal things as loudly, or as often, as extreme right wing radio does.

Did you ever listen to Randi Rhodes? I did. She is every bit as obnoxious and full of shit as Rush.

Even if what you say is true, they have to adapt to get an audience. If trainwrecks sell, you have to cause a derailment. But at any rate, you can't convince me that out of pure benevolence they took the high road in radio broadcasting and because of that lost an audience. Boo hoo.

I don't know what your school is all about Alex, but I do hope it goes (went?) well and enhances your professional and personal life and makes you more prosperous. I'm always a little sorry that I didn't take full advantage of my GI bill and finish college, but at this point, I don't think it would enhance my life any.

Good luck if you are still in!

GoatMan, I'm NOT for the Fairness Doctrine. But I'm also not for media consolidation -- they're two separate topics.

Don't be chummy with me. You shouldn't even be here IMO, because you were banned.

Stick to the topic and leave my personal life out of it.

Just trying to mend old wounds.

My 12 step program said I should contact those I have wronged.

You haven't changed much.

So fuck step 8, I'm moving on to step 9. Have you seen Billo? Step 9 says I should kick his ass and take refuge in a cave.

But I'm also not for media consolidation -- they're two separate topics.

We are in agreement on both topics.

"Have you seen Billo? Step 9 says I should kick his ass and take refuge in a cave."

That's pretty funny, Stir, you dummy.

Well in that case I would expect to see conservatives stop fighting so hard to lift ownership limits and cross-ownership restrictions, and for that matter, against the FD.

Maybe someone ought to inform conservatives that they are wasting their time fighting over buggy whips.

Posted by nullifidian

Nulli,

First, this isn't a left/right issue. It's an issue that some on both sides agree about and some don't. Don't turn media consolidation into a partisan issue -- it's not.

Second, the Fairness Doctrine is SEPARATE from media consolidation. The Fairness Doctrine applies REGARDLESS of who owns what. It's a scam to attack conservative radio. You probably watch some leftward leaning news outlets (and to be sure there are plenty) and how would you like it if conservative messages invaded YOUR favorite channel??? The left can get their own radio frequencies and the right can get more rightward leaning channels. But don't invade those broadcasts you happen to disagree with!

"Second, the Fairness Doctrine is SEPARATE from media consolidation."

No shit.

"First, this isn't a left/right issue"

Ok, call it pro-corporate vs. pro-democratic. Works for me.

That's pretty funny, Stir, you dummy.

Posted by nullifidian,

I'll leave funny flags for you too....

Step 10 says to kill anyone who answers to step 9 comments. What's your address Null?

Seriously Alex. How is school going? You get through Econ 101 aqain? Supply and Demand can be tough. If you need a tutor, just let me know.

You haven't changed much.

Actually I have changed a lot. Just not towards your crew.

The last time I got chummy with Rex he went back into his old behavior soon after.

Fool me once and all that.

Hey, Alex -- There must be some history there I'm unaware of. I did not know he was being snarky with the school thing. Just to let you know, I wasn't. I just didn't know what was going on.

Goat- no big.