Some straight talk about the Fairness Doctrine
By David Neiwert Saturday Feb 14, 2009 3:00pm
Here in Seattle -- the town Bill O'Reilly derides as a "far left haven" -- one would think that a properly functioning free market would create offerings on local AM radio reflecting the political climate: generally liberal to middle of the road, with a few dedicated conservatives hanging in there.
But that's not what we get.
We have three all-conservative talk stations in town. The largest news station has a popular talk show featuring a right-winger and a fake centrist. The other big news-talk station, KIRO, is supposed to be a pan-ideological station; it features a popular centrist Democrat but also one of the most obnoxious right-wingers -- and no genuine liberals, having dumped David Goldstein awhile back. And then we have a little Air America station that's reasonably popular but only runs nationally syndicated material and does nothing locally.
I have friends in the Bay Area who tell me it's not any better there. (I'm sure readers from there can fill us in down in the comments.) And in Washington, D.C., the owners are shutting down their progressive talk station in a population that's decidedly Democratic.
It's happening all over, and it's a problem, because these are the public airwaves, not just the private commodities that are radio stations -- which is why we have a Federal Communications Commission in the first place. We need to talk seriously about reforming radio so that the public's well-being is served on its airwaves.
Now, we've had a little fun making fun of the right-wing paranoids for getting all worked up about this issue well in advance of it actually surfacing. But now it is in fact surfacing: Sen. Debbie Stabenow earlier this week said she'd be interested in taking a look at reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
Predictably, it's emerging now with a right-wing frame:
"Dems target right-wing radio":
More and more Democrats in Congress are calling for action that Republicans warn could muzzle right-wing talk radio.
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York is the latest to say he wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine," a federal regulation scrapped in 1987 that would require broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues.
"I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.
What Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been telling their audiences is that any talk about the Fairness Doctrine is actually about trying to "silence" them. But of course, no one's interested in "silencing" anyone on the right: all we're talking about is creating a level playing field on the public airwaves so that a broad range of viewpoints can be heard instead of just one narrow bandwidth of ideology. This notion, naturally, is what they fear most, since their ideas don't compete well outside the vacuum they've created.
Frankly, even though at one time I was a full advocate of simply reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, I no longer believe that's the wisest course. For one thing, the Doctrine didn't actually achieve what it was supposed to do, which was making for a rounded and robust political conversation; mostly it stifled it, in large part because it didn't address the structural defects involved.
The core problem is ownership: Radio station ownership in the past twenty years has been decidedly conservative. And anyone who's worked in media can tell you that ownership sets the tone and direction of what you do. After the Fairness Doctrine was removed, these wealthy right-wing owners effectively proved right one of the fears that drove the creation of the Fairness Doctrine in the first place: That the wealthy can and will dominate the political conversation on the public airwaves by simply buying up all the available space. Since the wealthy in this country are overwhelmingly conservative, the end result was not only predictable, it was in fact predicted.
Liberal radio has withered on the vine not for the lack of demand, but for the lack of ownership dedicated to nurturing talent, promoting the product, and creating local outlets as well as national markets. Still, one of the right's favorite myths about the Fairness Doctrine has been that these stations failed because no one wanted to listen, as in this Fox report (video above):
But Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said radio programming should be based on what brings in listeners and advertisers.
"I can't think of anything worse than to have government in a position to dictate the content of information going over public radio," said Inhofe, a Republican. "The whole idea is that it has to be market driven. We have a lot of progressive or liberal radio shows but nobody listens to them and every time one tries to get on, they are not successful."
On the contrary, as Bill Press observes:
Unfortunately, what's happening in Washington reflects what has happened in one city after another across the country. In Miami, Clear Channel recently dumped progressive talk for sports: Clear Channel stations made the same move in San Diego and Cincinnati. Sacramento abandoned progressive talk for gospel music. In fact, according to a study released by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, there are nine hours of conservative talk for every one hour of progressive talk.
In fact, the only reason there's not more competition on American airwaves is that the handful of companies that own most radio stations do everything they can to block it. In many markets -- witness Philadelphia, Boston, Providence and Houston -- they join in providing no outlet for progressive talk. In others, as in Washington, they limit it to a weak signal, spend zero dollars on promotion and soon pull the plug.
Companies are given a license to operate public airwaves -- free! -- in order to make a profit, yes, but also, according to the terms of their FCC license, "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance." Stations are not operating in the public interest when they offer only conservative talk.
For years, the Fairness Doctrine prevented such abuse by requiring licensed stations to carry a mix of opinion. However, under pressure from conservatives, President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission canceled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, insisting that in a free market, stations would automatically offer a balance in programming.
That experiment has failed. There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.
Rather than bring back the Fairness Doctrine, though, it might be better simply to reform the structure of how FCC licenses are distributed and make diversity of ownership a priority. That was the conclusion of a 2007 report from ThinkProgress that took a hard look at the issue and concluded that serious reform indeed was needed -- but that the Fairness Doctrine was not the way to go:
Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.
The full report [pdf file] is here.
We need to have robust, informed, and mature discussion about reforming radio and the use of the public airwaves. Unfortunately, because of the wingnuttery of the right, that's been all but impossible.
Perhaps we can start by framing this not as an attack on right-wing radio but on creating a level ideological playing field -- not driving out the right, but ending the dominance of right-wing wealth. When it comes to the public airwaves, the people with the most money should not have all the megaphones.
Login or Register to post comments.
How about breaking up the monopoly of the 6 news corps.
Like the oil industry, a small cabal gives the appearance of competition but it's not the case.
They saw what happened to Getty and the only competition between them is to see who can rape the consumer the most.
Maybe start by limiting ownership to no more than one or two stations per market, no more than one each on AM and FM.
Teddy Roosevelt style Monopoly and Trust busting!
Hear, hear. I'd give a Fairness Doctrine plus throw in complete capitulation on FISA to undo the media consolidation allowed by the FCC. If nothing else it would be a job stimulus program since papers, radio and TV stations would be forced to hire local talent instead of relying on feeds from the MSM (or worse).
There was a chart chronicling the loss of news gathering agencies floating around a few years back.
http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/media-own...
50 outfits in 1983 and now 5.
Ain't capitalism great!
will the Corporate media get their propaganda across if they have to balance that act?
neither the left nor the right has any salable ideas.
Salable to the public.
Both adhere to ideologies that are worn out.
We are facing a collapse of the economy, arguing about politics.
Good luck to all here.
We are fucked.
is true, however I get the impression that at least some, certainly not all, of the Democrats at least care about the common man.
I genuinely feel Obama cares about folks, I genuinely feel Conyers and Kennedy feel for the folks. I don't necessarily get that impression about Pelosi and Reid, but at least i don't think they're out to hurt us. They just help themselves.
I can't name a single Republican right now that I genuinely feel cares more about this countries citizens than it does this countries corporations/businesses.
biggest pack of flat earthers the country's ever seen. and they love you're attitude.
With the economy in the crapper, a health care crisis, a despoiled environment, etc, etc, why should we even be talking about the right's favorite bogeyman?
I think Obama should vow that he would veto a bill that reintroduced the Fairness Doctrine, and he should do so for 2 reasons:
1: It takes most of the bite out of the wingnuts' paranoid delusions about their precious talk radio being smothered by the liberal state.
2: Whether or not the conservatives are able to buy up most of the radio stations and air their own garbage views, it's unconstitutional to deny them that right.
Regarding the previous sentence, I also want to make it clear that we don't even have a consensus on the Fairness Doctrine even among progressives.
We must pick our battles carefully.
"2: Whether or not the conservatives are able to buy up most of the radio stations and air their own garbage views, it's unconstitutional to deny them that right."
Are you referring to the 'right' to 'air their garbage views' or the 'right' to 'buy up most of the radio stations'? I agree that it's unconstitutional to limit speech, but I don't see that anyone has a 'right' to control the nation's airwaves or any other media. Setting limits on media ownership to prevent monopolies doesn't interfere with the First Amendment, and such limits should probably be tightened considerably: many markets are already near monopolies.
The issue is the public airwaves. No single company should be able to own all or a sizable portion of the public airwaves. That's no better than government ownership.
As Clear Channel has shown in San Diego, owning several stations is not just about market share, it's about keeping out competition. They don't care how small the audience is on some stations (1360, e.g.), as long as it's not available to the competition.
Buying up radio stations is a right in a capitalist society. Anti-trust litigation is a reasonable solution to the situation that develops when a monopoly is stifling competition, but radio hasn't reached that point, yet. At the moment, all it takes to create a station is a license, which the FCC provides to anyone regardless of ideology, and the sense of principle (i.e. lack of greed) needed to say "NO" when the conservative giants try to buy the station.
Maybe we should have laws that limit the ownership of unreasonably large chunks of the airwaves, but that's not what the Fairness Doctrine is about.
I look at it this way: how would progressives react if the tables were turned? Would we be crying about our freedom of the airwaves, or would we concede to Republicans that they deserve an equal share of the conversation?
I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm OK with procrastinating on it, because we've still got bigger problems to deal with first.
for the EXACT SAME REASON Republicans don't want fairness -
which is progressive arguments would put to shame conservative arguments - so we'd have nothing to worry about, but they obviously do.
They say fairness isn't really fair, but that's wingnut speak for "anything fair and we're going to get our asses kicked up and down the street".
Fact.
the radio monopoly makes all progress more difficult and we don't have the time for the flat earthers that play a part in this 'democracy' just because we let them have the biggest soapbox in the country.
the talk radio has been the difference the last 20 years- it's why we're in this mess and to keep ignoring it is a huge mistake. it is the only reason there was any real opposition to the jobs bill- it enables their hypocrisy on a coordinated national level.
and Obama simply trying to shame Republicans about getting their marching orders from Blimpaugh is apparently not going to do the trick.
There would be no wingnut base if it weren't for wingnut radio - these people are taught to be stupid - they have common sense smothered out of them and wingnut radio is the HUGE pillow.
"With the economy in the crapper, a health care crisis, a despoiled environment, etc, etc, why should we even be talking about the right's favorite bogeyman?"
If conservatives continue to own the public airwaves, Obama wlll lose the war. There is no option to do nothing unless he wants to lose.
However, instead of bringing back the fairness doctrine, change ownership rules to sharply reduce the number of stations a single company or its subsidiaries may own in a single market. Preferably this should be done quickly with the new ownership limits effective in no more than one year.
If conservatives scream about breaking up the ownership monopoly, then the alternative must be the fairness doctrine.
Remember in 2000 when Gore said that even if he wins, he loses? That might be the case here, if we stick to only those 2 solutions.
Maybe neither one is necessary if the only goal is to see balance in broadcast. The Republicans are on the decline in Washington... maybe we'll see some of that action spread to talk radio. They can't exist without advertisers.
That's true enough. But the response of Clear Channel has been to reduce expenses, cut local programming, etc., instead of doing things that might actually grow the audience.
One which is destined to either fail or shrink them down to the point where the playing field levels itself.
like cookies but they are still all going to be the same cookie. There must be equal time given to both sides.
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
the time for the flat earthers GOP radio enables.
the best solution is the quickest one and that may be some new kind of Fairness Doctrine. let them challenge it in the supremes. wouldn't demonopolization have to go through the courts first?
and i wonder if breaking it up doesn't just mean that rich republicans pick up the pieces and do the same shit.
I think you could easily make a case that by having so few corporations own and/or control all of the airwaves they deny the citizens their First Amendment rights of free speech - their voices are silenced because right wing propagandists own and/or control all of it.
Something to that effect.
cops in the country. whether its giving national exposure to some school kid with an anti bush t shirt or a dan rather reporting dirt on an AWOL president or a 'moderate' GOP senator trying to put country over a party that's gone down the toilet, the talk radio blowhards to the dirty work.
thrown around by the talk radio monopoly itself- it's a testament to the monopoly that their talking points propaganda about free speech and market forces pollute the discussion among progressives.
... ,and maybe even grew up in, a city. I have family down home still, in Topeka and So Missouri. I visit occasionally, and I can tell you it's imperative we take back our airwaves. And they ARE public airwaves, licenses for which are given with the stipulation they SERVE THE PUBLIC GOOD and foster the exchange of ideas. Not for their profit ( I have nothing against profit, I wish them great financial success, truly. Profit is not, however, the only thing... maybe not even the most important thing. In fact, I don't think the charter even mentions the word.) But if you've ever driven through Iowa, or southern Missouri, or God help me, Kansas, and, because of a stupid broken cd player, been forced to listen to the dreck that passes for intelligent thought on station after station after please-God-just-kill-me-now station, you'd understand just why. And why Red State America exists the way it does. No internet, no newspapers, local right-wing loons piggy-backing on Sean and loofa boy and the drug-addled gasbag. We simply cannot allow the right to control ALL means of communication, and the Fairness Doctrine silences no voices ( though, God help me, I'd love to), infringes no rights, denies anyone their profit... it only requires serving the public good and providing divergent viewpoints, something NOT being done under the current system. And what is it with the whole Reagan worship thing, anyway? Can you say Eighty-some felony convictions? And that wasn't the half of it... but that's a another conversation.
Your nuts! The only thing that keeps the right wing goons afloat, is the COMPLETE monopoly of the message (airwaves). They would be a 25% party if there was even a 2 to 1 advantage of conservatard radio and t.v. propaganda - and they know it!
Even in the bluest of states, all we get is rightwing morons 24/7. And when a "centrist" gets on the airwaves who simply challenges the orthodoxy, they are soon replaced by another corporate fascist goon! Even though they may be kicking the crap out of the reich winger in the ratings. You are a fool if you don't realize this.
Whether or not the conservatives are able to buy up most of the radio stations and air their own garbage views, it's unconstitutional to deny them that right.
The Constitution makes no reference to capitalism or the right of capital to use the public domain for propaganda.
The Centrist Democrats and the Republicans are the same people. They both represent the wealthy aristocracy. The Democratic Party is being over-run with a new political ideology that is more European in its World view. These people have labelled themselves as Progressives after Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive ERA. This is a generational change. The Babyboomers divided themselves along Conservative-Liberal lines. The younger generations have choosen to divide themselves along economic lines; the haves and have-nots; or, the wealthy aristocracy and everybody else.. MSNBC has done a good job of picking up on this paradygm shift. People like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are quite popular with Progressive thinking individuals. The bottom line here is this; there is money to be made off of this paradygm shift. Talk radio has been slow to pick up on this, mainly becuase, they target older audiences. Now, if Progressives are clammering for a talk radio show; someone out there is going to pick up on this and make quite a bit cash. I really don't think that a fairness doctrine is needed.
"Talk radio has been slow to pick up on this, mainly becuase, they target older audiences. Now, if Progressives are clammering for a talk radio show; someone out there is going to pick up on this and make quite a bit cash. I really don't think that a fairness doctrine is needed."
It's all about ownership. If you can't get a station, you can't get on the air. Rachel Maddow's also been on radio. However, it's very hard to find her anywhere on radio because of the ownership issue.
Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Alan Colmes, Randi Rhodes, Lionel, Leslie Marshall, Rachel Maddow - ALL GREAT TALK SHOW HOSTS in their own way - doesn't do them much good if they are DELIBERATELY kept off the air.
and tax breaks for billionaires. its' the GOP's personal advertising agency and it starts and to a large extent controls the news cycle.
if their ads could only pay the water bills they'd still fight to keep progressives off.
All the conservatives I know listen to right-wing talk radio to get their hate on. They memorize their talking points and marching orders to save themselves the effort of thinking for themselves. But I don't know if this coin really has two sides. Personally, I wouldn't care to listen to a Limbaugh-type liberal, even if such an abomination were to exist.
That would probably be Randi Rhodes.
But you COULD listen to Thom Hartmann who is an incredible, knowledgeable, brilliant, articulate gentleman!
and hannity and the rest of the RW propaganda machine.
I've heard Randi Rhodes say some things that just seemed to be conspiratorial in nature - like she was on the outer fringes and possibly stretching reality in the truth.
Granted, not as severe or as often as somebody like Lush Blimpaugh - but I HAVE questioned some of the things that have come out of her mouth.
She reads the net religiously and often falls victims to some of my more off the wall prognostications though in actuality I've never heard her wrong on air.
Best of all, I like her clear, crisp delivery and instant, crushing rebuttals when parrying with liars.
Oh, and yes, I want to have her baby.
Just ask her brother Dusty.
of the daily GOP/heritage foundation talking points.
the progressives don't have that kind of coordination and most of their material is real as opposed to designed to feed and threaten the trad media, move the political center artificially to the right, create straw men, turn molehills into mountains, and to basically create an alternate reality
there is no comparison.
I believe the wingnut radio jocks view the MSM as liberal, when in actuality it's pretty moderate, because they want to pull everything further over to the right - they want to move the goal posts.
Only stupid people can't see through the sneaky cleverness of wingnut talkers.
I'm far more attracted to Stephanie Miller's appearance, personality and sense of humor - I LOVE how she just mocks and laughs at the Republitards!
To whom must you appeal?
The people: of course.
The power brokers: of course.
Problem for the rest of us: the people are convinced what to think by the power brokers.
Hell, to be fair, lets also give them control of the telegraph lines, CB radio, the nation's strategic stockpile of semaphore flags, our carrier pigeons and all two-tin-cans-connected-with-string technology. A failed ideology to be broadcast over obsolete media: Good Luck with that.
I think it's more romantic than realistic.
Tester and Webb, for example, have covers of being rebels but cores of being traditional power players.
one in your hand
... you were in the middle of Kansas? It may be obsolete media for you and me, but for them it's state-of-the-art, and if all it ever spews is garbage, can we be surprised when the people who listen to it stink?
The middle of Kansas? What's the matter with those people? You have my sympathies.
I am all for breaking up monopolies of media ownership. I feel consolodation is terrible for the free marketplace of ideas. But I cannot get behind regulations that try to force the airwaves to be ideologically "balanced." Rush Limbaugh once correctly pointed out to someone who introduced him as a right-wing talk host: "I'm not far right; I'm middle of the road! You don't get as popular as me appealing to a fringe!" Who decides where the "center" point for "balance" is? No, the market must decide what political ideas are popular.
Look, republicans will always have an advantage in talk radio, because the medium inherently appeals to small-minded bullies who don't wish to think for themselves, and wish to sit around and have a blustering voice tell them what they want to hear. Liberals don't NEED cheerleaders or preachers. But if and when such a need arises, the market will produce such an outlet. MSNBC, while TV, not radio, is rising to fill that market niche since around 2006.
The right-wing talk machine is steadily losing it's popularity, because it has lost it's credibility. Look at what's happening to Fox's ratings! That movement had its chance and failed. The market is deciding. It is tragically flawed, but governmnet involvement in trying to "level" the playing field is an unnacceptable blow to the first amendment.
By Rush's logic Hitler must have been 'middle of the road', as well.
The right person can certainly make extremist, 'fringe' positions seem reasonable and even logical.
Limbaugh WASN'T correct in saying he is a moderate - he's tricked millions of people into believing he's a reasonable guy.
The monopoly the wingnuts have on the AM dial has itself been a "blow to the first amendment".
Isn't being the ONLY ONE allowed to speak while silencing opposing voices an infringement of first amendment rights?
Right wing radio is DANGEROUS to this country in that it misinforms and dumbs down a large percentage of the electorate, who then go vote for lesser abled pinheads who fuck up this country. You could make a case that wingnut radio is keeping our country down and making it takes steps backwards.
Hmmm. You seem utterly unconcerned about wealth and power abrogating the First Amendment by proxy, too -- which is what has been occurring. What kind of speech rights are they if only one viewpoint is allowed to have them?
There are many people who would listen to liberal radio, IF THERE WAS ANY!
I can't begin to tell you how many liberal's I have heard tell me they listen to Limpballs, "because that's all that is on!" That is f**ked up!
.
Why, it's not propaganda filled lies that are being spewed out on the airwaves which were informed by one political ideology so as to influence and coerce a mass population said messages are directed at...
... When the GOP does it, NO?
.
.
Break up the alliance -
ABCNNBCBS&FOXPRAVDA
.
"In fact, the only reason there's not more competition on American airwaves is that the handful of companies that own most radio stations do everything they can to block it. In many markets -- witness Philadelphia, Boston, Providence and Houston -- they join in providing no outlet for progressive talk. In others, as in Washington, they limit it to a weak signal, spend zero dollars on promotion and soon pull the plug."
Peak Brodcasting, the platform for Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly, bought up KFPT (Air America and Ed Schultz, along with some local stuff) and the proceeded to let it die on the vine, while it pumped all of it's resources into KMJ-AM, it's flagship right-wing outlet. I have since decided to boycott anything Peak Broadcasting is involved in or advertises, and have encouraged my friends to do the same. This was a sham perpetrated on the progressive left of Fresno and outlying areas and it should be considered criminal. I still have the KFPT stickers on my car.
The same thing happened in San Diego. Clear Channel-owned 1360 had a progressive format, but had trouble drawing an audience because of it's weak signal and non-existent promotion by CC. CC then changed the format to sports talk. The ratings are now among the lowest in San Diego. Budget cuts by CC have now reduced the station to one local show with the rest syndicated. Clear Channel doesn't care how low the ratings go. They won't sell because that could let in competition.
they could have 1000000000000000000 conservative radio stations in California and the great people there would still give them the big FUCK YOU on election day!
:)
californians can thank talk radio for the governator and their economy
If they can vote blue for a president they could surely do the same for governor - Ahnold's fame alone made him a shoe in. That wasn't very smart of them
operation, regardless of whether he should have gone or not
Same thing in Michigan. But it would be nice to have someone sane on the airwaves.
I used to work with some people who every day would make it a point to listen to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. After being there for awhile I noticed that this was there only source of objectivity on what they were reading, viewing or hearing on the news of the day. They listened very attentivly and believed most of what Rush said. When I would queery them as to why they believed that what he said was correct they did not have an answere. In their minds they were doing their part by being informed about current events. When a customer would make a staement that comported to their veiwpont on an event or news item they would parrot proudly what they had heard on Limbaugh's show as if it was their own. I used to ask them why they did not take the time to maybe look at something from a different perspective and they would again parrot Rush's words and say thats what people are saying. To them there was some kind of solice in feeling informed and any opposing viewpoint had no credibility. My point is it is not feasible to change these peoples minds until some event that directly effects their income and well being will they be forced to open their eyes and maybe see something from a different angle. And even then they will probobly not admitit that Rush was wrong. They just have no desire to look at things from several perspectives at the same time.
One of the secrets of success for propagandists like Limbaugh is that they legitimize and validate the basest and most ignoble instincts of people who are searching for a way to indulge their dark side. It is a sure-fire manipulative trick. If people can be offered justifications and validation for impulses they know to be shameful, they will grab onto to them like drowning men to straws...if they are the type of person who is inclined to indulge their inner beasts. They get to be a bigot, a racist, self-absorbed, self-righteous, whatever they want, if the authority figure says those things are virtuous. And in return for validation, they give their loyatly, to whatever the authority figure wants. They get to say, "I'm a good person who never does anything wrong", and the manipulators get a perfect tool/pawn.It is so effective, that those who allow themselves to be thus manipulated never have any idea that they have been played from start to finish.
and the morons with their heads in the sand that listen to it and believe it as gospel:
Being a liberal is common sense. You don't have to be taught how to do it. You don't have to listen to propaganda and be brainwashed into being a liberal. It comes naturally.
On the other hand, you have to be susceptible to being brainwashed with propaganda and start allowing yourself to think illogically about things to become a Republican. You have to hear LOADS AND LOADS OF BULLSHIT to start believing it and buying into it.
And like lahru said - there is a certain pride (and proud certainty) in their ignorance, a bonding with others in their ignorance - as if only those people discovered Blimpaugh and he is right.
I think those people either are missing or have an extra chromosome. Their brains are wired differently. Black is white - up is down.
Have you ever seen one of these fucking lunatics healed and converted? I think they are hopelessly naive, gullible and ignorant.
SERIOUSLY, have you ever met a person that respected Limpdick's and Shithead Hannity's opinion at one point and then saw the light?
I don't think it's possible. These are the stupid people in our country. Susceptible to believing nonsense.
I think that's why wingnut radio is successful - these gullible retards support the advertisers - they buy penis pills, get rich quick schemes and they pay for the rights to name a star after someone.
MORONS.
Do you think that tax cuts lose the government money? Boring. Better to think that they actually make the government money. Now you "know" more than the guy next to you.
Do you think that providing a safety net helps the poor? Boring. Better to think that it creates a culture of dependency that hurts them in the long run. Now you "know" more than the guy next to you.
And on and on and on...
The Fairness doctrine would apply to news shows, not entertainment.
So the question arises are these conservatard pundits, news or entertainment?
Does this mean Comedy Central is a credible news source of reason and opinion...
... "Fair and Balanced"?
.
That's exactly it. We get trolls on this site accusing us of only getting our news from John Stewart or Stephen Colbert, when they only get their news from rash, ann, (gri)malkin, beck, gibson et al, but when they go too far, "They're only entertainers."
Stewart and Colbert have opposing views more often than any of these others, and they're clearly comedians. They also seem more informed than the lauers and others who allow these conservatards on their mainstream market shows.
This was penned before 9/11.
Other than Barbara Olson and Russert Sr. having passed away, has anything changed?
http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm
This is also so far not about consolidation, but concentration. Like Clearchannel owning so many radio outlets, that seem to hire conservatards only for their talk shows.
And maybe we'll have the end of such discussions where the "host" yells you're lying, you're lying, cut off his mike!!!"
Famous words of Goebels during Hitler's propaganda campaign. They knew that if they controlled the message, they could bull$hit the people.
That's precisely what the locksteppers have realized and why you seee such total imbalance between the hatred they are spewing and the revisionist history (self-delusion and sociopathy) and what's really occurring.
from Hitler about how to manipulate the U.S. voters.
gave them the coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition needed to make it work.
Sat, 02/14/2009 - 15:56 — rimhotep
You remember when a rim job meant something different than diamond encrusted hubcaps, that continue spinning even when stopped for a light?
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY
Reinstating the "Fairness Doctorine" will only slow them down. They should be brought to a complete halt.
Just start charging for airwave leases. Stations that have balanced programs get a free lease. Stations that are overly slanted one way of the other have a high priced lease. That way if they want to pollute the public airwaves, they're at least paying for it. If they want to serve the public interest, they get free airwaves.
what programs are balanced?
that the monopoly enables will allow them to pay top dollar
but maybe there's potential there
Money is no object to these people. Unless they have to pay taxes for the public good. Then they don't want to contribute at all!
These psychopath's that own C.C. and their ilk, would pay 10 times the price for their monoplies to continue - just to save a few bucks in taxes. They are sick puppies!
Lose the fairness doctrine, but reinstate regulation in the monopolies on tv and radio station ownership. That's what I've been saying for years. Limit how many stations one company can own. Keep a wide variety of owners and that will insure that a wide variety of viewpoints will be heard.
Like old whats-his-name sez:
US President Thomas Jefferson, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
Seems these battles have to be fought every 40 years or so.
Control is then gradually bought off, dissent shouted down.
Nothing new under the sun.
Not when the wide variety have the money.
We have a wide variety of people in congress but they all think about saving their own asses first.
The right's pockets are deep. Think Walmart.
the planet's getting crispy - we don't have time for their flat earth crap any more.
Although I've lived in Salem, Oregon most of my life, I've listened to KGO radio since I was in elementary school. They broadcast out of San Francisco, and are a true liberal voice. You can hear them on the internet, but their signal is strong enough at night to reach up and down the west coast.
http://www.kgoam810.com
From Eugene to Salem.
What if we simply had more progressives who didn't bow before the almighty dollar and sell their stations to conservatives?
Kind of like Air America. Wouldn't that be nice?
Show me where. OK, a couple shows on MSNBC, but they make no pretense to be "fair and balanced". Media matters a lot in politics, and I see a strong conservative, corporate, bias in most Network and Cable news. Look at the preponderance of Republicans on the news shows bashing the stimulus. Not one economic expert, nothing but spin and when you get a preponderance of that, some start to think maybe they are right. Not from facts presented, but from the shear volume of the same message. I mean they could be right, but how about equal time on the debate. How about an occasional expert?
Coming up after the station identification break, straight talk from larry craig!
...restoring the FCC to integrity. As it stands now, the FCC does not serve the public. It is little more than a brothel that exists to exclusively serve the handful of corporations that control the media and the telecommunications infrastructure. So long as the FCC puts the People last, and so long as it is not serious about upholding its duty to defend Constitutionally established rights regarding freedom of the press, speech and, by extension, freedom of assenbly, nothing is going to improve.
Assuming that the Obama Administration can restore the FCC to integrity, I think several things need to happen. We need to ressurect the Fairness Doctrine, enforce the Equal Time requirements along with reinstating strict limits on ownership.
But this spills beyond the FCC. The DoJ needs to become involved in two areas. First, they need to wage a vigorous anti-trust action that results in major divestitures against the handful of companies that control all TV and radio media. Together they form a cartel that operates a coordinated de facto monopoly that willfully and knowingly operates against the best interests of the public. That cartel/monoply must be destroyed, decimated. Secondly, they need to examine initiating a RICO action against these same companies, on grounds that they are running a continuing fraud operation. There is ample evidence that they are in business principally to propagandize; they are in a position of trust, and they knowingly and with premeditated malice aforethought use every resource at their disposal to betray that trust, to the harm of us all. Their propaganda is coordinated and uniform, and what they present to the public as news and analysis is willfully dishonest, deceitful and intended to manipulate rather than inform. They make money through the perpetration of fraud. They have abetted specific crimes, such as the illegal war of aggression against an innocent nation, economic policies that have bankrupted the nation, and so-on. Had they not lied, deceived and manipulated the Public, it is likely that the public would never have allowed these event to take place. Hence, they are directly responsible for actions that can be translated into monetary harms/damages sustained by all citizens, principally through tax bills and lost business/earnings opportunites. In effect, they satisfy all qualifying and required prerequisites for prosecuting RICO crimes. They are a continuing criminal enterprise engaged in interstate commerce that derives power and money through the willful exercise of fraud. They can be charged under a number of RICO provisions, including conspiracy, one count for each act.
The DOJ should thus prosecute them, with an eye toward stripping them of their financial assets, jailing the principals, and stripping the companies of their licenses to use our airwaves. There is no other way to stop their propaganda that is consistant with respecting Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of the press. Criminal fraud, conspiracy to operate an ongoing criminal enterprise and the like are not Constitutionally protected activites. It would set a precedent that would stop the lies an manipulations of the public and do so in a way that passes Constitutional muster. My bet is that a credible threat, a demonstration of earnest intent would be enough to send shockwaves through the industry. They would be scrambling over each other to cleanup their acts
A free nation cannot remain standing without a press that does it job with integrity. Every free nation that has fallen to despotism and tyranny has first suffered the corruption of it's fourth estate. That's essentially what has happened here.
If we take care of fairness, diversity integrity and criminality issues, it will put the bad guys out of business.
The People come first.
We need to use existing anti-trust legislation to break up the big media monopolies. They have turned the public airwaves into their private medium for marketing and corporate communication - or when put in political rather than business terms, propaganda.
Part of the problem is that some of the media does not see the bleeding of business into politics: they think in terms of business only and don't understand the corrosive influence of "marketing" in a real-world environment.
And the other part of the problem is that some few people actually DO see the bleeding of business into politics, and they actively exploit it.
Rupert Murdoch can claim to be a businessman, even as he manipulates the results of U.S. elections. Whether or not he is deliberately using his position as a political one is irrelevant - neither he nor anybody should be able to wield as much media influence as he does. The government OF the people needs to take back that control.
However, since the media IS controlled by corporations, we have to somehow empower politicians to do this, even as the mainstream (corporate) media tries to convince our fellow citizens that it is the citizenry that is being harmed as power is taken from the corporations. This is a daunting challenge that demonstrates exactly why the corporations must not be permitted this much control of the media ever again.
Good point. Myself, I hold no hope that politicians will do anything constructive, because they are too corrupt and they are too cowardly. A DOJ action, using laws already on the books (anti-trust, RICO), would bypass that entire congressionalcesspool while affording its denzians the pious and lofty excuse of allowing the DOJ to do its work.
That needs to be read by each and every one of us again:
"However, since the media IS controlled by corporations, we have to somehow empower politicians to do this, even as the mainstream (corporate) media tries to convince our fellow citizens that it is the citizenry that is being harmed as power is taken from the corporations. This is a daunting challenge that demonstrates exactly why the corporations must not be permitted this much control of the media ever again"
and ignore its ability to start the news cycle, turn molehills into mountains, and to a significant degree dominate the rest of the tradmedia.
biggest political blunder in our history, considering time lost on global warming and the economy may be progressives ignoring the GOP radio monopoly.
"it will put bad guys out of business." So now people with a different opinion are bad guys. Who decides who the bad guys are?
I think that's what laws are for.
Come on...you know that's not what I was talking about. Bad guys is a figure of speech. This is not about differences of opinion. Opinions, regardless the perspective they come from, are harmeless things. Even if they are odious, they have no power to hurt.
This is about breaking the laws of the land, this is about the powerful using their resources to abuse those who trust them. This is about restoring a vital function without which no free democracy can long last. This is about presenting lies as truth, in order to manipulate the trusting into working against their own self-interests and the interests of society at large. this is about using power they were never intended to possess to do works of harm. As for deciding who's the bad guys? As Albatross pointed out, judges. And juries,too.
Very well said.
It seems like an obvious tact, and the laws are already on the books. If you want some interesting reading, Google the RICO Act. There are a few hurdles that must be met to pursue a RICO action, but in this case, they are easily satified...in spades.
Interstringly, it doesn't require the DoJ to initiate a RICO action. Any citizen can. It would be interesting to do a web-based petition drive to get several million signatures for initiating a class action RICO suit against these corporations.
and as far as criminal enterprise... on several occasions over the years i've heard what could easily be a choreographed series of calls that could easily have been coming from the basement of the heritage foundation.
instructing his sheeples to go to the Heritage Foundation's website!
Yeah, speed is essential. That's a hard one. Maybe something as simple as a leak of a new criminal investigation would do the trick, assuming DoJ were to actually initiate such an action.
I've gotten these same calls. Interesting thing, they could constitute wire fraud,too: Lies presented as truth in order to manipulatively elicit an intended response that is harmful for the responder.
But the FCC and the Fairness act has to do with traditional broadcast, not cable, nor satellite.
Although they could add that language.
I came across an Indiana Republican congressman trying to get the Christian stormtrooper's charged up over the Fairness Doctrine. Ever the victim, he told viewers it was all about silencing religious conservatives.
I would be in favor of making stations provide airtime to CORRECT FALSE and MISLEADING FACTUAL INFORMATION. This would be enough to crumble Limbaugh and the other douche bags.
I would also offer free air-time to run political ads, but with some truth in advertising caveats.
If we could get a liberal talk show host, whose main schtick would be to to basically go over the previous days lies told by Limpdick and Shitheadhannity et al.
Did a good job with his book(s) but couldn't cut in on the radio.
local and national liars to watch the migration of the talking points into the trad media.
that is an issue... remember when there was a run up to the Iraq war and afterward and there weren't any protest songs that made it to the airwaves either...just another way of silencing the message like they want to do by not allowing the internet to be neutral either.
under Colin Powell's son was another example of foxes guarding henhouses under Bush's administration. There were regulations against the very consolidation that has happened. Do you think it is any coincidence that the more the big boys got in lockstep with Bush, the larger the consolidations were allowed to become?
Like many of our other screwed up policies, some of this began under Clinton, but accelerated off the charts under Bush.
Sure did.
Amazing, not one month into our new administration and every newspage, in whatever form, has either conservative celebrities or minority republicans getting front page status at every turn! Does ANYONE remember democrats and moderates getting this treatment when the repugs were in power? I must have seen John Boehner from Ohio at least 5 times the last two days! Yes, I know his name, repetition can do that. Anyone who does not see this is a stacked deck is just a plain idiot!
Conservatives (hate that term, sensationalists is better) control the airwaves? Because they control the message and liberals just respond. You don't hear very many liberals on the airwaves anywhere actually coming up with plans. Ever. They are too busy responding. Like it or hate it, the same is with legislation. The Stimulus Bill was not liberal created and the only things liberal in it, were in response to making deals with the sensationalists.
with its daily smorgasbord of prechewed talking points and one liners for the lazy celebrity talking heads to pick from later in the day.
Puh-leeze. Radio stations owners would put goats on the air if they thought it would snag top ratings.
Conservative hosts are more prominent on the airwaves simply because they get better ratings. Say what you will about the politics of Rush and Sean but acknowledge their performance as ratings magnets. That's what matters to owners, not their ideology. By the way, Rush charges the top rates in America for his syndicated programming. His deals are ball-busters but owners pay the heavy fees because they can turn a profit.
Liberal/Progressive/Left-leaning talk hosts would be more present on the airwaves if they got better ratings. Air America is a perfect example of a great idea poorly executed. If you truly seek L/P/LL programmming, it is very well represented and easy to find on American airwaves. It's called NPR, National Public Radio. In many markets, this programming (collectively and on individual stations) is the most popular format on the air. In the author's city (Seattle), the NPR station (KUOW) is the #1 rated station in the market. Yes, the two conservative stations are also enjoying high ratings but that's cyclical due to the recent election extravaganza.
Every single radio station owner is only interested in carrying programming they can substantiate in ratings and monetize in advertising sales. Conservative talk is what SELLS. It's the same story on cable news too.
in places like New York, Boston, DC, Philly, Atlanta, LA, San Francisco and places that are OVERWHELMINGLY liberal - it makes NO SENSE whatsoever.
Explain why/how this crap is supposedly such a success in these places.
other right wing talk hosts
fact is, most americans dont listen to talk radio or any radio at all for that matter
mostly because of the media conglomeration, which makes one station sound exactly like the next one on the dial
and dont give me that cock and bull about npr...because you havent listened very recently, have you?
npr is now a mix of lib, centrist and conservative voices
before the media monopolies were formed, there was a range of voices on talk radio
if competition is good in one biz...it should be good in radio too
so break up the monopolies....lets see what happens
btw, there are two talk stations in los angeles, who are extreme right wing...they get no ratings at all...but they are both owned by the same conglomerate, and all the programming is syndicated
they make money because it costs them nothing....but their programs are not popular
oh, and you miss one point...we the people own the airwaves...the conglomerates just buy licenses to operate
we do have the right to remove those licenses...and we do have the right to tell them that we would like more local and diverse programming
so stuff it you wingnut whore
Conservative hosts are more prominent on the airwaves simply because they get better ratings.
This is a right wing meme. Conservatives get better ratings because....
1. Many times they don't
2.Conservatives are established voices. Give the liberals some time and they will have them too. There are many making inroads already. As a long time radio person I can tell you the rule of thumb is a station needs at least 2 years to establish its self. If you don't give a station that much time you aren't observing a basic radio rule.
3.VERY IMPORTANT-as has been mentioned in some of these comments, conservatives are on established big powerful stations. Put some of the well know liberal talkers on a 50,000 watt heritage station in a progressive community and see what happens. Of the wildly few liberal outlets, wildly few are on anything but a weak relatively unknown, unpromoted station.
4. Station sales people need to be progressives that believe in the station or at least good enough salespeople to make others believe in their product.
Trippy, you appear to be a meme spreader and obviously know little about radio and how it works..Let me repeat, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
It drives me NUTS to listen to WWRL 1600 in NYC - I'm 15 miles outside of New York and it comes in as half static over my radio during the day time - and NOT AT ALL at night! Is this the best we can do?!
And do you really think that people in liberal NYC only want to hear Beck, Limpdick and Shithead Hannity?
It's fucking ridiculous.
FUCK! I'm hundreds of miles away from WWKB 1520 in Buffalo and at night I get it in CRYSTAL CLEAR! THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
True, not every conservative talk host gets better ratings than L/P/LL talk hosts ... but all the top rated talk show hosts are conservative. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to why.
"Conservatives are established voices. Give liberals some time and they will have them too." Sorry, but that's naive. There are no guarantees in broadcasting. Hosts sink or swim on the public's acceptance of their programming content. American radio listeners are quick to change the channel if they find something unappealing or, conversely, if they find something more interesting. Air America promised a lot but delivered little. Al Franken may end up being a good senator but he was a lousy talk show host and the marketplace rendered a verdict on his program. If fact, Al Franken got got more publicity than any other radio host in America when Air America was launched in 2004 but he was unable to grow his show beyond the initial hype.
Many L/P/LL hosts have been on solid signals throughout the country but the power of the signal is no guarantee of the impact of one's message. In today's media environment, there's no shortage of outlets to hear political talk. Air America launched with the biggest one time streaming event in internet history. Then it fizzled. They've also been part of satellite radio from their very early days. Today, it's less about the platform of delivery than it is about the content being delivered.
Station sales people need to be progressives that believe in the station or at least good enough salespeople to make others believe in their product. Do you really think every salesperson selling the shows of Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Ingraham, etc. is a conservative and card-carrying GOP member? What's next -- a written political philosophy screening before you can sell ad time? There are plenty of Democrats who sell these shows and plenty of Democrat owners who air them because they need a paycheck to support themselves, their family and the advertisers of their community. If your point was taken at face value, then only fans of country music should sell country stations. And by the way, most sales people sell everything in a station cluster, not just one show unless they're assigned to something like sports.
Listen, I'm no Rush fan. He's an agitator and an extremist. But he's also a successful broadcaster and that's why he and his ilk endure. If Ed Schultz ends up beating the pants off El Rushbo, he too will be on big signal stations. But it's not the size of the stick that makes the difference. Don't believe that? Then I have two words for you: RACHEL MADDOW.
As Uncle Joe McCarthy notes, we the people own the airwaves...the conglomerates just buy licenses to operate. That means you have a vote in the process. Turn off your radio or find and support another station that matches your philosophy. No station operator is going to stop broadcasting popular programming (and yes, conservative talk is popular no matter how much you hate it) because of the political philosophy.
Your full of shit! In Michigan, whenever a centrist gets better ratings than the reich wingers, they suddenly get changed to the 10 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. time slot!
Can you name the host(s) who got big ratings in prime time hours and ended up being moved to late nights? If that really happened, chances are good that the General Manager of the station is now a former employee of the place. No owner moves their most popular host to their lowest rated time slot.
I don't understand how a town like Philly doesn't have any liberal programming whatsoever. We have two major conservative stations on the AM dial and nothing to counter it on our side.
Philly is heavily Democratic and the suburbs continue to shift. Two of the major suburban counties officially became Democratic in 2008 while the others are all on the cusp.
Air America programming was in & out of here in a flash and it was on an insanely weak signal as well. The only way I've been able to listen to liberal radio around here for the past 5 years was via XM Radio. We need a real station already...
Radio stations/broadcast media are but one component. The Fairness Doctrine deregulation allowed a handful of conglomerates--the majority foreign-owned--to buy up newspapers, music producers, magazines, publishing, cable outlets and movie studios. Generally speaking, 6 corporations own all media in the U.S. Synergy, as it was called, in the 80s. Competition, much less competing viewpoints is hampered hugely when so few entities determine content. That's why accusations regarding the liberal media have been so ludicrous for so long.
S/he who has the gold makes the rules. Separating radio stations from the whole isn't enough. Restricting ownership to avoid market saturation is why the FD was instituted. Don't be distracted by the talk radio element alone.
You're right. If you want a good visualfor getting an idea of how far reaching are the tentacles of the few remaining corporations that own almost the entirety of the media, check out this link:
http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_enterta...
That's from 2005.
The free market rations goods efficiently; it doesn't even attempt to do it fairly. Such a consideration never enters into the logic of free markets. If two buyers compete for the same limited good, the one who pays the higher price gets the goods. This is efficient, and fairness is irrelevant.
The radio spectrum can't be allocated by the free market because unlike most goods and services, fairness counts. If segments of the radio spectrum go to the highest bidder, that means they go to the people with the most money; i.e. the rich. The rich use their control of these segments to the exclusion of the interests of the rest of society.
As it turns out, what's good for General Motors is not necessarily good for the rest of society. Allocating the radio spectrum is not like other allocation problems such as who gets front row seats at the World Series. We don't have an immediate solution to the present situation, but we do have to find one.
"For one thing, the Doctrine didn't actually achieve what it was supposed to do, which was making for a rounded and robust political conversation; mostly it stifled it..."
"The core problem is ownership"
---------------------------------
As a radio person for dozens of years I can tell you you are right on the mark here.
Instead of going through all the red tape to make sure things are fair and they don't risk their license by getting it wrong, they will just dump all discussion. We will just be without it completely...which is really what rushbo and sean know and are saying. I think that is the wrong direction for all of us.
Media conglomerates own the vast majority of radio stations in the country and nearly all of them in cities of notable population.
My solution. Break'em up! Make them sell them off. Keep in place or even further restrict ownership allowances in any given city and insist the owner of the station or stations live in the community they serve.
The fcc awards licenses and if there is a notabale number of people in a community that is not being served, liberal or conservative the FCC should consider that when applications for licenses are issued.
Here's a novel idea. It's a free market. If liberals want an outlet to voice their opinions, then create one.
The problem is that radio stations are a private industry for the most part and therefore their owners should be allowed to make their own decisions based on what the market dictates. The liberals attempted to gain some of the market with Air America, but it went bust because very few people listened to it. Why? Because like it or not, America is mostly a center-right population whether you want to admit it or not. I think a stronger argument could be made for making NPR give a more balanced agenda since they are funded by US tax dollars, and I resent that since I'm paying for them and can't stand their liberal agenda. Their existence doesn't bother me because no one listens to them anyway, but I hate that I have to pay for it.
If you believe that the government should dictate the market, are you going to say that General Motors should be forced to sell an equal number of Ford vehicles as well? It's the same difference. Leave private enterprise alone and let the market dictate itself. And besides, MSNBC and CBS would never be able to follow the Fairness Doctrine anyway. How long before it would be applied to all media? NY Times with a conservative section? Never happen!
I agree with what one political pundit said. Liberals will never be as successful in the talk radio market as conservatives because conservatives have a built in audience that the liberals don't. That market consists of working people commuting to and from work each day.
"Liberals will never be as successful in the talk radio market as conservatives because conservatives have a built in audience that the liberals don't. That market consists of working people..."
---------------------------------
Thats got to be the dumbest, most easily proven false thing on this entire page. Your brain seems undernurished LF. Might want to think about feeding it something.
As for the rest of your post, typical wingnut propaganda. Some things I could agree with but it is what you left out that is primary to the discussion.
Your a moron! Allowing the rich to propagandize the airwaves for their own financial narrow agenda has nothing to do with free markets. Go back to the Ayn Rand school of imbicilty and feeble thinking!
1) Do you REALLY think people in places like New York, Boston, DC, Philly, Atlanta, LA, San Francisco and other places that are OVERWHELMINGLY liberal want to listen to that shit? That makes NO SENSE whatsoever.
2) KNOCK OFF THE BULLSHIT about NPR being liberal - TRY LISTENING TO IT instead of parroting what Limpdick and Shithead Hannity tell you about it.
I was listening to NPR the other day and they had some guy from the FUCKING Heritage Foundation giving his opinion on why he thought the stimulus bill was a bad idea. NPR is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of something that IS fair and balanced.
3) KNOCK OFF the stupid analogies that are not even comparable.
4) The United States is a MODERATE country with about the SAME amount of people to the left and right of center.
Just fucking go back to Hotair or Freeperville - you're a moron.
"That market consists of working people commuting to and from work each day." -- I always try to catch Rush on my 7 AM drive.
You've been listening to conservative radio for too long.
Licensing a piece of the radio spectrum means that the government agrees to provide police services in the event someone else decides to broadcast on the same frequency. If that happens, they shut down so-called pirate radio stations by making arrests and prosecuting what might be called the "competition" on that frequency.
In allocating the radio spectrum, the government acts like a traffic cop. It doesn't own the radio spectrum; all it does is allow some people one of a limited number of channels. If the free market were the sole consideration in allocating parts of the radio spectrum, the same logic might apply to allocation of the right to pass through city intersections. Wealthy people would get lots of green lights, and everybody else would get hardly any. At certain intersections, red lights would turn green only after midnight.
We expect fairness in the allocation of green lights. Even if you're at a minor cross street, you'll eventually be allowed to go through. But if traffic signals were allocated like radio channels, you might sit there all day.
..is a good way of putting it. You're also right that the government doesn't own the airwaves or the bandwidth. The people do. The government is only supposed to serve as steward, to watch after our assets.
Yeah, business people have come in & bought out al the media. But all of you let it happen. You let these wars happen. Torture happen. Corporations seize everything, run everything, drive this country straight into the ground. You sat there watching god forskaen Will Ferrell movies & listening to crap like Good Charlotte.
This isn't about regulation, or anything else. It's that THERE ARE NO VOICES to be heard. This generation hasn't produced a Frank Zappa, a Jello Biafra, a Hunter Thompson,... there hasn't been a single real protest song on the radio, hardly a protest movement against the wars, no new organization against the monopolies. Richest country i the world, & everyone is to busy BLOGGING. Or playing video games. Or wallowing in creature comforts.
Get up & say something. Make a noise. Get pissed. Then maybe they'll be something EXCITING & dangerous to listen to, & things will start to change.
If people would just stop voting for republicans for 12 years, we'll be living in paradise. Save the revolution for when the two parties actually are the same. Right now you can take a passing glimpse at Clinton, Bush, and Obama to see that they're vastly different.
If the people vote for republicans again after watching them fall flat on their face, then this country deserves to fail, monopoly or no monopoly.
The fairness doctrine is not coming back, nor should it.
However allowing conservative radio to rail about it is a good thing,
because when they do they look and sound stupid. If they continue
to talk about something that never happens they become "chicken little".
Personally I have no use for the fairness doctrine, and in its absence
I don't understand why I should be subjected to Bobby Jindal
giving a response to the presidents adress to congress. These clowns
have done nothing to earn equal air time, nor is there anything that they can say at this point that would lend a shred of credability
to the tired and worn out republican talking points and the mantra of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
Have people been sleeping For the last 10 plus years.. The liars on the news media and talk shows have promoted Bush , corporations and the republican's criminal policies which has just about totally destroy our democracy , country and economy...
When a person is let to tell their lies , BS and propaganda as truth over the air waves as Germany in the early 1900's ,, then Bush's/republican corporation administration has ,, proves this is the most dangerous thing to a democracy and a free country that can let to exist.. Telling a person's opinion is one thing but misquoting and telling Flagrant, lies and propaganda is another....
shouldn't be brought back.
We definitely need the fairness doctrine back. I believe the truth will set us free. The right-wing doesn't believe in truth. They believe in "the gut" or "faith". Imagine if before every broadcast people would have to reveal their credentials? For the liberals you'd have PhDs in Physics debating heads of Arabian Horse Associations or former male prostitutes about global warming for example. How can the less fortunate, under educated citizens develop into a well informed voters if we allow these sociopaths to look credible?
I'd like to mention that Lush Rimjob supported the Fairness Doctrine back 'in the day'. He said it was the only way the 'Pubs could get equal time in the 'liberal media' environment.
The so-called 'liberal media' has done a lousy job pointing out his hypocrisy.
Login or Register to post comments.