Democrats Push to Silence Conservative Talk Show Hosts

[carpro]

Liberal radio talk shows could be a routine part of radio programming if they had a message that sells.

They don't.

I don't believe the stations much care which one they put on the air, but it has to be profitable. Apparently there are not enough people who want to listen to the liberal message to make it so.

I surmise there is too much venom and blame America first rhetoric to suit normal people.

 

[snrsvdbygrc]

Liberal radio talk shows could be a routine part of radio programming if they had a message that sells.

Not only do they not have a message that sells but they stand for nothing, and if they do decide to stand for something, wait around five minutes and they will change their mind.

Abortion: Well we firmly believe it is a woman's right to chose..but we also feel abortion is not good for the society as a whole and is just a symptom of society's problems.

Church and State: We firmly believe that God should be taken out of everything! But we believe in God.

Free Speech: We have the right to say anything we want, but Christians should shut up and quit trying to tell us how to run our lives! Shirts that have four letter words are ok in our schools but that Christian wearing the Jesus Christ T-shirt should be suspended! Oh and we should teach Koran in our schools, under the first amendment, but still you should not allow that Bible in class!

Come on how can anyone in this group say they stand for something!

 

[Daisy]

I don't get it - how is preventing a broadcast monopoly silencing conservative talk shows (which are mainly cable)?

I'm assuming that the OP refers to a reintroduction of the Media Reform Act of 2005 (linkie to summary) which was also introduced by Rep. Maurice Hinchey.

 

[hillclimber1]

The lunatics are running the asylum. The far left wackos are running all the committees and they make the agenda. Making sense is not their strength.

There must be more....They are not stupid. I think it may be the opening salvo against those far right wing conservative Christians. Ooops, I are one.

 

[carpro]

I don't get it - how is preventing a broadcast monopoly silencing conservative talk shows (which are mainly cable)?

Another strawman.

You're on a roll today. The subject matter must not be to your liking.

 

[777]

The whole issue of the Dems trying to silence conservative talk radio is amuzing because it gives tons for the conservative talk shows to talk about and more prove their side, but it is also very scary that they really do want to shut certain people up because of their fear for the truth being exposed as it has been so many times on conservative talk shows across the nation.

The left exists in an insular world. Talk radio sprang up right after the last "Fairness Doctrine" expired in the late 1980's. Before that, the media, almost all it, was dominated by the left only. Those were the good old days to the likes of Bernie Sanders (S-VT).

The real reason they are doing this now is because their only counter part known was the syndicated show, Air America, which was hosted by the likes of Al Fraken, has been a dismal failure compared to even local conservative shows across the country.

"Airhead America" had no vacuum to fill, the Old Media and NPR was enough.

The democrats are upset because they want radio to be on board with their thinking the same way they have the liberal press and television media onboard.

They realize they live in a predominantley Christian country. It's disturbing when these same people say that they had to rush the stage becasue they were being verbally assaulted by "hate speech".

They think the NYT, al-AP, MSNBC, et al are objective and unbiased, and will act accordingly.

Even people of their own ilk are tired of government trashing to the extent that they do it, and if you go to their site today you find one of their shows titled, "Did Jesus Christ exist? The God who wasn't there?"

They're pessimistic, cynical, driven by blind rage and lack any perspective.

One more nail confirming that Liberal Christian is likely an oxymoron.

This is where they'll try to revert to the old definition of the word "liberal", as if saying it makes it so. "Liberal" will trump "Christian" every time for them.

 

[RockRambler]

Just one man's opinion for what its worth...but I have worked in radio off and on for years, and I have been a lobbyist.

Its not that the liberal viewpoint isn't wanted. Its because that for years the liberal viewpoint could be found in almost all nightly newscast. The average American, busting his hump 40+ hours a week, that his God, family, and his dog; from the 60s on, has heard some of the most bias points of view given as "news" that it is almost unbelievable.

Rush Limbaugh when he hit the airwaves was a breath of fresh air. Granted now he is stale, but in the late 80s and early 90s there was no where else that the working man with conservative values was going to get conservative viewpoints on radio or TV. Other outlets made fun of him...had a condescending attitude toward him.

Liberal talk radio doesn't work for 2 reasons....the hosts so far are not entertaining, they're whining or combative, but not entertaining. Plus the liberal point of view is availble daily in most mainstream newspapers and TV outlets.

 

[Daisy]

Another strawman.

How is that a strawman? I asked if the OP refered to a particular piece of legislation which the article cited:

Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Ownership Reform Act."

If there is another piece of legislation that you are referring to, cite it, but addressing the OP is not a strawman.

You're on a roll today. The subject matter must not be to your liking.

Oh lookee, carpro made another nasty personal remark. What a surprise.

 

[carpro]

How is that a strawman? I asked if the OP refered to a particular piece of legislation which the article cited:

If there is another piece of legislation that you are referring to, cite it, but addressing the OP is not a strawman.

Try to stay on topic, Daisy.

I know it's difficult when it doesn't go where you want it to, but you can do it.

Monopolies, indeed.

 

[Daisy]

Try to stay on topic, Daisy.

I know it's difficult when it doesn't go where you want it to, but you can do it.

Just can't resist personal attacks, eh carpro? My posts referred to & quoted the article cited in the OP and as such are on point whereas your nastiness towards me is off-topic. Do you have anything to say about the topic or do you want to taunt me some more?

Monopolies, indeed.

Yes, indeedy, that is what the bill in the OP article is about. Did you have a different piece of legislation in mind (2nd time)?

 

[777]

Try to stay on topic, Daisy.

I know it's difficult when it doesn't go where you want it to, but you can do it.

Monopolies, indeed.

Well, everybody's got a favourite subject.

The democrats are following their natural instincts, which is to form committees to study global warming and to regulate anything they think is unfair to them.

 

[carpro]

Well, everybody's got a favourite subject.

The democrats are following their natural instincts, which is to form committees to study global warming and to regulate anything they think is unfair to them.

Hence the push to find a way to silence conservative talk shows. Can't compete? Find a way to regulate it out of existence.

 

[El_Guero]

They want to regulate the talk shows out of business as they fund pacs so that they can get around campaign contribution limits.

:saint:

Hence the push to find a way to silence conservative talk shows. Can't compete? Find a way to regulate it out of existence.

 

[Daisy]

Can any of you decrying the "regulation" actually cite it? It can't be the one mentioned in the OP as that is about monopoly of broadcast media (publically owned airspace).

 

[The Galatian]

For most of my life, the idea was that if the public granted you temporary use of the airwaves, you had a responsiblity to permit all points of view in your broadcasts.

If you didn't want to allow that, you were free to use your own medium, instead of that belonging to the public. It worked very well, and the public was served by getting all points of view.

Only in recent years has the fairness doctrine been removed. If you think that politics have become more rational or public-spirited in that time, you'd be in the minority.

 

[carpro]

Can any of you decrying the "regulation" actually cite it? It can't be the one mentioned in the OP as that is about monopoly of broadcast media (publically owned airspace).

Tunnel vision.

 

[777]

Tunnel vision. Hey, you're right! This post:

For most of my life, the idea was that if the public granted you temporary use of the airwaves, you had a responsiblity to permit all points of view in your broadcasts.

If you didn't want to allow that, you were free to use your own medium, instead of that belonging to the public. It worked very well, and the public was served by getting all points of view.

Only in recent years has the fairness doctrine been removed. If you think that politics have become more rational or public-spirited in that time, you'd be in the minority.

is the problem with having some benchmark of faux "fairness". The "center" is where you are politically and/or what you agree with. The media was your monopoly in the good old days.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

For years conservatives have made the argument that the media is extremely biased towards a liberal point of view. If you believe that this is true (I don't) why would you be against requiring the liberal media to present both points of view? Obviously, none on the conservatives on this board really believes that the media is extremely liberal. Interesting.

 

[777]

For years conservatives have made the argument that the media is extremely biased towards a liberal point of view.

Because for years the media has been extremley biased toward a liberal point of view?

If you believe that this is true (I don't) why would you be against requiring the liberal media to present both points of view?

Because I believe it to be true that the Old Media was/is extremely biased to a liberal point of view and I know you don't?

Obviously, none on the conservatives on this board really believes that the media is extremely liberal. Interesting.

There was a Fairness Doctrine in play for almost forty years, there was nothing "fair' about it. Been there, done that.

Monopoly no more.

 

[The Galatian]

Originally Posted by The Galatian
For most of my life, the idea was that if the public granted you temporary use of the airwaves, you had a responsiblity to permit all points of view in your broadcasts.

If you didn't want to allow that, you were free to use your own medium, instead of that belonging to the public. It worked very well, and the public was served by getting all points of view.

Only in recent years has the fairness doctrine been removed. If you think that politics have become more rational or public-spirited in that time, you'd be in the minority.

is the problem with having some benchmark of faux "fairness".

Don't see how. If a station permitted any opinion at all, the fairness doctrine required them to let opposing voices have their say on the matter. In the 1984-speak of the neocons, letting all voices be heard is "faux fairness," I suppose.

The "center" is where you are politically and/or what you agree with.

Doesn't matter. Opposing viewpoints had to be heard. It was a matter of being American in those days. As I said, we've drifted considerably away from traditional American ideals since then.

The media was your monopoly in the good old days.

Don't think so. When Nat King Cole got his own television show, it was considered highly "controversial" to be so liberal as to let a black man have his own television program, and the uproar doomed the show. The political climate then was conservative and it was the liberals who usually got air time to rebut conservative viewpoints presented by the networks. Which is why it got axed, I suppose.