Democrats Push to Silence Conservative Talk Show Hosts

[Daisy]

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

Except it hasn't. Centrist is not liberal.

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

You've done that? The Fairness Doctrine was killed in the Reagan administration - how much news did you really watch 20 years and more ago? I doubt you've had any experience of it whatsoever.

Monopoly no more.

That's what the Media Reform Act is all about.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

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



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

Monopoly no more.

This discussion is about a proposed bill that would apply to today's media, not the media of years ago. I suppose you support the Democrat's bill then.

 

[777]

Heh.

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

Exactly. They'll just tell themselves that the Fairness Doctrine is supposed to counter "hate speech" if they're hearing something they just don't like.

Silence your opposition if you're super-duper smart and tolerant only! And, if you call yourself a "centrist" when you're not one, even if you click your ruby slippers and repeat it three times.

 

[Daisy]

I still don't understand how you think conservatives are being silenced by letting others be heard.

 

[777]

The polarization of Old and New Media is slowly becoming the equalizer.

This discussion is about a proposed bill that would apply to today's media, not the media of years ago. I suppose you support the Democrat's bill then.

Why would you suppose that?

If I didn't like the old bill in the first place, why would I want it back?

It's still *shudders* regulation.

 

[hillclimber1]

You and I are pretty big on the same issue. But I am sick of hearing pro-life and seeing nothing. When we define our faith by issues, the politicans play along. They will be more than happy to talk pro-life, anti-homosexual, etc, etc all day long, then do nothing. When we question this, they point to their opponent and encourage us to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I am tired of voting for evil.

Show me a pro-life candidate that will do something, and I'll consider it, otherwise, don't play games with my faith...its more important to me than that.

One major problem we face in this struggle for right to life and the marraige issue is that we have to have a Supreme Court aligned with our viewpoint, because any efforts at change always end up there. But we must keep our oar in the water with pro-life and anti-gay candidates, and legislators and above all Presidents. I fear this is the last chance at a good Supreme Court. I can't see anyone after GWB nominating an originalist.

 

[carpro]

I still don't understand how you think conservatives are being silenced by letting others be heard.

They're not stopping anyone from being heard. The liberals are stopping themselves by having a message not enough people want to hear to make it profitable as a program.

Therefore, they want for free what conservatives have to pay for. Sounds just like a typical liberal program to me.

 

[El_Guero]

Liberals have always wanted what is theirs and what is ours to be theirs.

Liberal as defined by daisy's 'centrist' . . . which are almost communists in my book.

:laugh:

They're not stopping anyone from being heard. The liberals are stopping themselves by having a message not enough people want to hear to make it profitable as a program.

Therefore, they want for free what conservatives have to pay for. Sounds just like a typical liberal program to me.

 

[The Galatian]

I still don't understand how you think conservatives are being silenced by letting others be heard.

Conservatives don't have a problem with it. Neocons think it interfers with their right to keep other viewpoints from being expressed.

 

[RockRambler]

Whether you want to call it a liberal or conservative view...I don't think its fair to make broadcasters put on radio programming that doesn't make money. Conservative talk shows are paying for the time, its not being given to them. In the old days of radio the fairness doctrine mainly extended to public affairs programs. You had to provide equal time, because you were providing free air time.

If you pay, the market should rule.


For anyone that wants a good view of liberal bias in the media, I would recommend you read Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS.

 

[El_Guero]

I like your post!

Whether you want to call it a liberal or conservative view...I don't think its fair to make broadcasters put on radio programming that doesn't make money. Conservative talk shows are paying for the time, its not being given to them. In the old days of radio the fairness doctrine mainly extended to public affairs programs. You had to provide equal time, because you were providing free air time.

If you pay, the market should rule.


For anyone that wants a good view of liberal bias in the media, I would recommend you read Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS.

 

[Daisy]

For anyone that wants a good view of liberal bias in the media, I would recommend you read Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS.

Or, even better, What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

If you pay, the market should rule.

As a general principle, I agree with this. However, the difference with broadcasting is that unlike print media where anyone can pretty much start up a publication, the airwaves have limited spectrum that belongs to us all. The broadcasters don't own the spectrum, they are licensed to use as a public trustee. Consolidation of broadcasters into a few hands means undue influence by one company, such as Clear Channel. The old rule was no more than 7 AM, 7 FM and 7 TV stations by one owner nationwide; and in a single market no more than one of each. Now it is different, with companies owning hundreds nationwide, and up to 8 of each IN A SINGLE MARKET. In principle, I don't like that much control by any one owner over what we see and hear in the electronic media, regardless of the political leanings of the station owners.

 

[RockRambler]

Or, even better, What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman.

I'll make a deal with you...send me a copy of Mr. Alterman's book and I'll send you one of Mr. Goldberg's book..and we'll both agree to read with open minds.

 

[RockRambler]

As a general principle, I agree with this. However, the difference with broadcasting is that unlike print media where anyone can pretty much start up a publication, the airwaves have limited spectrum that belongs to us all. The broadcasters don't own the spectrum, they are licensed to use as a public trustee. Consolidation of broadcasters into a few hands means undue influence by one company, such as Clear Channel. The old rule was no more than 7 AM, 7 FM and 7 TV stations by one owner nationwide; and in a single market no more than one of each. Now it is different, with companies owning hundreds nationwide, and up to 8 of each IN A SINGLE MARKET. In principle, I don't like that much control by any one owner over what we see and hear in the electronic media, regardless of the political leanings of the station owners.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Radio stations are always coming up for sale, and just like newspapers many times big corporations buy them. In a free market, it is not hard at all to buy a radio station and change the programming to anything you like. Only thing, liberal talk shows will not make money.

If Clear Channel thought they could make money replacing conservative talk show hosts with liberal ones, they would do it in a heartbeat. In business its not red state or blue state but GREEN that carries the message.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Radio stations are always coming up for sale, and just like newspapers many times big corporations buy them. In a free market, it is not hard at all to buy a radio station and change the programming to anything you like. Only thing, liberal talk shows will not make money.

If Clear Channel thought they could make money replacing conservative talk show hosts with liberal ones, they would do it in a heartbeat. In business its not red state or blue state but GREEN that carries the message.

It is not at all hard if you can raise the millions of dollars it costs to buy a radio station these days. There is indeed a high concentration of media in a few hands, and this is not good.

I will give you your point on Clear Channel. They will put on whatever will drive the corporate profits up. Case in point, here in Denver, they own KOA which airs Limbaugh, and also own AM 760, the Air America affililate. Both stations are in the same building, along with many other Colorado and Wyoming stations they operate.

 

[El_Guero]

mmm ...

... if liberals cannot raise money, then I don't have to pray against Sen Clinton and the other pro-abortion candidates.

... unless maybe . . . the liberal ideology has decided to not change culture through talk shows . . . but by buying political power and subliminal messaging through Hollywood's conditioning of our young people.

mmm ...

... same reason the liberals were pushing for liberalizing the movie ratings so that they could sell hard 'r' and soft 'x' to kids as pg-13 . . . they found that advertising there porno as porno was not as profitable as they thought they would be . . . so liberals have tried to control what we watch and think.

It is not at all hard if you can raise the millions of dollars it costs to buy a radio station these days. There is indeed a high concentration of media in a few hands, and this is not good.

I will give you your point on Clear Channel. They will put on whatever will drive the corporate profits up. Case in point, here in Denver, they own KOA which airs Limbaugh, and also own AM 760, the Air America affililate. Both stations are in the same building, along with many other Colorado and Wyoming stations they operate.

 

[The Galatian]

so liberals have tried to control what we watch and think.

I'm wondering how presenting both sides of an argument amounts to "controlling what we watch and think." A rational person would say that it would be just the opposite.

Some people never got past 1984, it seems. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[777]

If you don't like 1984, maybe you should stop trying to go back to it.

Your pipe dream's doomed, parse that.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

If you don't like 1984, maybe you should stop trying to go back to it.

It seems Orwell got it right. It just took a few extra years to get there.