Democrats Push to Silence Conservative Talk Show Hosts

[StraightAndNarrow]

Strange spin.

Who would this law apply to? I assume the media in general. All I've ever heard on this board is how liberal the media is. Understand/

 

[poncho]

But why must they use pirate stations? If you can raise millions of dollars for a political candidate, then the liberal point of view should be able to raise millions of dollars for radio stations and compete in the free market.

Again, how is the liberal point of view being silenced during radio broadcasts? If you buy the time, you can espouse whatever liberal viewpoint you want.

Maybe the competition is to tough for em. When you have to go up against Murdoch and the military industrial complex to buy information outlets it sorta limits your choices.

Carlyle Group, the private equity firm, has expressed interest in Tribune's television stations, while David Geffen, the Hollywood media mogul, made a separate $2bn all cash bid for the Los Angeles Times, which Tribune rejected.

SOURCE

 

[poncho]

But why must they use pirate stations? If you can raise millions of dollars for a political candidate, then the liberal point of view should be able to raise millions of dollars for radio stations and compete in the free market.

Again, how is the liberal point of view being silenced during radio broadcasts? If you buy the time, you can espouse whatever liberal viewpoint you want.

Maybe the competition is to tough for em. When you have to go up against Murdoch and the military industrial complex to buy information outlets it sorta limits your choices.

Carlyle Group, the private equity firm, has expressed interest in Tribune's television stations, while David Geffen, the Hollywood media mogul, made a separate $2bn all cash bid for the Los Angeles Times, which Tribune rejected.

SOURCE

Then again the liberals who say their pov isn't getting across can only blame themselves. It was they who let the neocons get the upper hand in building powerful think tanks that can mold public opinion like putty in their hands. Edward Bernays would be extremely proud but the poor liberals can only twist their hands and run ads on the internet praising Hillary while dissing one of her her biggest supporters...Rupert Murdoch! :laugh:

Why is the MIC bidding on TV stations? You need to ask?

 

[carpro]

Maybe the competition is to tough for em.

It's not the competition that's too tough, Poncho. It's the audience.:thumbs:

 

[poncho]

It's not the competition that's too tough, Poncho. It's the audience.:thumbs:

I dunno about all that but it seems to me that liberals have been treating the audience to their pov for years decades even with no problem. Now it's the neocons turn. I do wish there were a real conservative side to the media though. I'm kind of tired of hearing the talking heads that talk tough and call themselves conservative, it's almost as if they haven't realized they've been co opted by a small group of (ex?) liberals yet. The benefits seem to be good though. Every once in a while they get a bone thrown to em when the White House wants to air some of it's fake news casts. :type:

 

[The Galatian]

Galatian and Daisy are at odds, then. Galatian is in favor of the "fairness doctrine" (a 1st amendment breach, IMO) on the public airways because they are, well, public.

The broadcast media don't own it, and they agree, in return for using it, to provide public services. Limiting speech on the station is not in the public interest.

But he said that the publisher should find a medium that is "his, not ours" to avoid having to comply.

Daisy, by her admission, would wish some newspapers to comply. These are privately owned entities...no claim of "public domain" can be made.

To me, this illustrates the slippery slope of messing around with the First Amendment. It starts with Galatian's plan, and moves to Daisy's...government rarely gives up power once it acquires it.

Your argument can be used to take the right to bear arms, on the grounds that people, if allowed to shoot targets and game, would inevitably move on to shooting people. A slight extension of your thinking would be to take away all private use of airwaves.

 

[RockRambler]

The broadcast media don't own it, and they agree, in return for using it, to provide public services. Limiting speech on the station is not in the public interest..

But how are radio stations, who are in the business to make profits, limiting speech? If you can't cut it in the free market, then you can't make it. But if you buy your own station, which is entirely possible as radio statations are sold all the time, then you can put whatever message you want out, as long as it falls within the decency standards. Again, if its a government owned radio station, then by all means have equal time. But on privately run stations, the free market prevails.

Since the highways into a gated- community with million dollar homes are publicly owned and maintained, does that mean that every ethnic and minority group is entitled to live there, even if they don't have the money?

 

[The Galatian]

But how are radio stations, who are in the business to make profits, limiting speech? If you can't cut it in the free market, then you can't make it. But if you buy your own station, which is entirely possible as radio statations are sold all the time, then you can put whatever message you want out, as long as it falls within the decency standards.

If they were private, this would be true. But the airwaves are not property, and therefore, the FCC is entirely justified in insisting that the stations do not limit the opinions expressed on them. If the station owner finds this unsatisfactory, he should open a newspaper.

Again, if its a government owned radio station, then by all means have equal time. But on privately run stations,

If the owner wants to use public resources, then he shouldn't be surprised if he is expected to serve the public interest. Restricting the voices that can be heard is not in the public interest.

Since the highways into a gated- community with million dollar homes are publicly owned and maintained,

They aren't. Past the gate, they should be privately maintained. If you want to exclude people from streets, you cannot simply seize public streets and exclude people.

does that mean that every ethnic and minority group is entitled to live there, even if they don't have the money?

The law says that public land is owned by all people, and access cannot be restricted. All the gated communities I know about have to maintain their own streets and public areas, which are privately owned. Other city services are available to them, as they would to other citizens, but if they want to use public streets, then they have to permit public access. This is the difference between excluding viewpoints on a private medium, and excluding viewpoints on public resources.

Good point.

 

[RockRambler]

If they were private, this would be true. But the airwaves are not property, and therefore, the FCC is entirely justified in insisting that the stations do not limit the opinions expressed on them. If the station owner finds this unsatisfactory, he should open a newspaper.



If the owner wants to use public resources, then he shouldn't be surprised if he is expected to serve the public interest. Restricting the voices that can be heard is not in the public interest.



They aren't. Past the gate, they should be privately maintained. If you want to exclude people from streets, you cannot simply seize public streets and exclude people.



The law says that public land is owned by all people, and access cannot be restricted. All the gated communities I know about have to maintain their own streets and public areas, which are privately owned. Other city services are available to them, as they would to other citizens, but if they want to use public streets, then they have to permit public access. This is the difference between excluding viewpoints on a private medium, and excluding viewpoints on public resources.

Good point.

Probably a state by state issued on the highways. Many times the gated communities here in NC are state owned and maintained.

I'll keep it simple then...since the public streets run by a poor man's house, is he entitled to a car from the government, even though he doesn't have the money to buy one?

Think it can be a slippery slope when you start thinking that broadcasters who own a radio station have to provide different viewpoints because its public airwaves. Maybe as Christians we should be working for radio stations to provide gospel music and preaching on an equal basis on rock stations!!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yeah, that'll happen.

The FCC is unconstitutional, and should be eliminated. People should be able to broadcast what they want. If millionaires want to subsidize ERR AMERICA, then go ahead.

How does one reconcile airway restriction with one's putative libertarian beliefs ?

 

[RockRambler]

How does one reconcile airway restriction with one's putative libertarian beliefs ?

Quite simply, you can't!!

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Be honest, if possible. Ummmm...Never mind.

The only reason liberals want the fairness doctrine back is so they can force broadcasters to give them free what conservative commentators have to pay for. Rathar than give this time away broadcasters will self censor and avoid controversial subjects.

Who loses the most? Listeners and viewers miss out on the free an unhindered exchange of information. In the end, that is the liberal objective. To return to the days when they controlled the airways. With the internet available, it's impossible. But the internet will be the next target. Liberals despise free speech.

Maybe I don't understand. Is this bill only about radio as a medium?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Yeah, that'll happen.

The FCC is unconstitutional, and should be eliminated. People should be able to broadcast what they want. If millionaires want to subsidize ERR AMERICA, then go ahead.

How does one reconcile airway restriction with one's putative libertarian beliefs ?

So what happens when more than one station wants to broadcast on the same frequency?

 

[The Galatian]

Probably a state by state issued on the highways. Many times the gated communities here in NC are state owned and maintained.

I would certainly hope not. The state has no business supporting or opposing private property. That would be similar to the present state of affairs, in which state property is used to exclude equal access.

I'll keep it simple then...since the public streets run by a poor man's house, is he entitled to a car from the government, even though he doesn't have the money to buy one?

Nope. But he is entitled to equal access to the street. That's why gated communities have to maintain their own facilities. If they want public money, they have to understand that public access is a consequence.

Think it can be a slippery slope when you start thinking that broadcasters who own a radio station have to provide different viewpoints because its public airwaves.

Could be. What next? Allowing anyone to use public parks and restrooms? Who knows what might happen?

Maybe as Christians we should be working for radio stations to provide gospel music and preaching on an equal basis on rock stations!!

Why not? If you can justify music as opinion, you'd have every right to do so.

 

[The Galatian]

Bro. Curtis on the restriction of opinons on public airwaves:
How does one reconcile airway restriction with one's putative libertarian beliefs ?

Quite simply, you can't!!

Precisely. If one is a liberarian, one acknowledges that the use of public property requires that all be given equal access to it.

Private property, on the other hand, should not be regulated that way. It is not the function of government to restrict access to the airwaves, but it is the function of government to protect private property rights.

 

[DeeJay]

Originally Posted by Bro. Curtis
Yeah, that'll happen.

The FCC is unconstitutional, and should be eliminated. People should be able to broadcast what they want. If millionaires want to subsidize ERR AMERICA, then go ahead.

How does one reconcile airway restriction with one's putative libertarian beliefs ?

Well Howard Stern is a good example of why public radio needs to be regulated. Quick answer we want to protect kids from porn, for the good of our kids and socity.

Nobody would suggest that free public TV should not be regulated, would they? Should xxx movies be shown on PUBLIC free tv at 3:00 in the afternoon. Of course not.

Should nude pictures be allowed to be placed on billboards on the freeway? Of course not.

My libertarian beliefs say that we have liberty, as long as it does not harm others or interfear with others liberty. In cases where it does my liberty is regulated, so it can not. Most of our laws are (or should be) set up this way.

Even strict Libertarians have to admit that our freedoms sometimes have to be limited to protect others. If not they are not Libertarians they are Anarchists (sp?)

 

[RockRambler]

The man living next to the street is in the exact same situation as the man wanting a broacast license. The public street is there, but to drive on it he must purchase a license and obtain a vehicle. If you want to express a liberal point of view on a radio station, then you have to purchase the broadcast license and obtain a radio station.

No law right now is preventing either one from doing it.


And why would a "fairness" doctrine only apply to two different opinions. Aren't there more than two sides to many political arguments? Would you have to make equal time for all opinions?

 

[The Galatian]

The man living next to the street is in the exact same situation as the man wanting a broacast license.

You betcha. If it's a public street, then no one can keep him from equal access to it. Same as public airwaves. If the guy with the radio station doesn't like it, he's free to go find a medium that doesn't belong to the public. If he's making a living off our property, then he's not free to treat it as if it was his property.

And why would a "fairness" doctrine only apply to two different opinions.

It didn't.

Aren't there more than two sides to many political arguments?

Yep. Stations were required to allow those opinions to be broadcast.

 

[RockRambler]

Yep. Stations were required to allow those opinions to be broadcast.

And right there I think is the difference when comparing the fairness doctrine of old, to the fairness doctrine of today.

Generally in radio, before Rush, public affairs programs were of a local nature. In that case, the owners of the station did have an obligation to the public for local time for all opinions.

Now however, much of radio, talk and music, is syndicated. If I'm a station owner, why should I be required to carry any syndicated broadcast that is going to lose money? Its hard to demand equal time from syndicated talk show hosts when the conservative viewpoint is a money maker, while the liberal viewpoint is a market loser. Station owners are not in some great conspiracy to keep any viewpoint off the air, they're just in the business to make money.

The man living next to the street is in the exact same situation as the man wanting a broacast license.

You betcha. If it's a public street, then no one can keep him from equal access to it. Same as public airwaves. If the guy with the radio station doesn't like it, he's free to go find a medium that doesn't belong to the public. If he's making a living off our property, then he's not free to treat it as if it was his property.


So now we're back to the same scenario. If the only way the poor man can get a vehicle to use the public street, then the government should step in and give him a car. If a liberal can't get up enough money to buy a radio station, then the government should give him one to get his opinion heard. Same thing, just a bigger level. The taxi cab company is making money off our public highways, so if the poor man can't afford a taxi, give him one..afterall it our public property and he should be able to make a living off it just like YELLOW CAB.

Amazing what circles we can turn with some of the viewpoints.

 

[The Galatian]

And right there I think is the difference when comparing the fairness doctrine of old, to the fairness doctrine of today.

We don't have a Fairness Doctrine now. I'll take the old, since it seems to agree with you. You don't need programs, just the willingness to let others present opposing viewpoints.

The man living next to the street is in the exact same situation as the man wanting a broacast license.

Barbarian observes:
You betcha. If it's a public street, then no one can keep him from equal access to it. Same as public airwaves. If the guy with the radio station doesn't like it, he's free to go find a medium that doesn't belong to the public. If he's making a living off our property, then he's not free to treat it as if it was his property.

So now we're back to the same scenario. If the only way the poor man can get a vehicle to use the public street, then the government should step in and give him a car.

Nope. But if he has one, the street has to be open to him. Likewise, the government isn't required to ordain points of view, only to require that all points of view be allowed.

If a liberal can't get up enough money to buy a radio station, then the government should give him one to get his opinion heard.

Nope. That's not the Fairness Doctrine. You're arguing with yourself, now.

Same thing, just a bigger level. The taxi cab company is making money off our public highways, so if the poor man can't afford a taxi, give him one..

Nope. It's not about making money, either. It's about permitting other views. You're still arguing with yourself.

Amazing what circles we can turn with some of the viewpoints.

You're very good at it. But if you want to argue with others, you have to argue against their ideas, not the ideas you'd like them to have.