• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Talk Radio

If the Fairness Doctrine can be modified to include a "beat Mancow with a blunt object repeatedly" clause, I'll be on board in a heartbeat.
 
Here's what it boils down to: "Liberal/leftwing" talk radio stations don't do well. Most of them--and most nationally syndicated programs--are either "Conservative/rightwing" or just strange stuff (like UFO nutjob radio).

Since the market will not support as much leftish talk as rightish talk, the Democrats want to force the stations to air programs people won't listen to. If that means that the stations lose money, well, so what? It's more important to be balanced.

Of course, the Internet, TV, magazines, newspapers, etc. run strongly to left-of-center, but somehow that's not a problem.

I live in Greater Seattle area, and there's one token righty on the major talk radio station; people keep asking for him to be fired, because he's "offensive" and "deliberately makes the government look bad". This is for things like pointing out that the local transit authority flat-out lied in its cost projections when they went to the voters, since their internal documents show they knew that the projections were flawed before the published the rosy numbers. (Of course, he also goes on the warpath against hypocritical Republicans who condemn gays while cruising for sex in the airport men's room.) Since most of the city, county, and state government up here is controlled by the Democratic party, focussing on gov't failures and missteps is going to embarass that party more.

The "fairness doctrine" made a certain amount of sense when there were limited number of frequencies that the government controlled who used them. In the current world, with cable, satellite, and Internet, it makes no sense at all.

Just my thoughts, MK
 
The Fairness Doctrine is one of those things that will wind up biting the idiots who are pushing it.

Those who thought it was a great idea to demand equality on AM radio which none of them even listen to deserve what they get when movies, magazines, television, and every other medium on the planet are targeted the next time the Republicans have the White House and Congress.
 
Drudgewire said:
The Fairness Doctrine is one of those things that will wind up biting the idiots who are pushing it.

Those who thought it was a great idea to demand equality on AM radio which none of them even listen to deserve what they get when movies, magazines, television, and every other medium on the planet are targeted the next time the Republicans have the White House and Congress.
Click to expand...
The senate just voted 87 to 13 not to attempt to re-instate the FD.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZo8HqKUQ5LkGkTf0CiQtS7WQlQQD96JF8V00

Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine
By JIM ABRAMS – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.
Click to expand...
 
h.g.Whiz said:
What is so unfair about talk radio that it would need a fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...
Well, apparently nothing, which is why Obama is against the "fairness doctrine".

Of course this will not stop halfwitted lunatics screaming about it, but hey, what would?
 
Instead they are just going to attempt to bully corporate radio people into dropping talkshows one local station at a time.
 
h.g.Whiz said:
Instead they are just going to attempt to bully corporate radio people into dropping talkshows one local station at a time.
Click to expand...

Looking at your posts, I think you are mumbling to yourself. Maybe you are on a wireless cell phone?
 
Last edited:
OK, the fairness doctrine is a nutjob idea.

As Miss_Kit said roughly, at some point in time maybe some kind of case could be made for it, but now it just ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy.

But, the Democrats have a lot of ideas that I think are pretty crazy. Giving away billions of dollars to GM to piss away seems like one obvious one. That went forward because it benefited various Democratic interest groups and an inept Republican president just thought it would be nice to complete his nearly perfect score for unrelentingly bad governance by supporting it.

That's the way politics works. Miscellaneous special interest groups get together and pump millions of dollars into cynical politicians so that the government will give them special favors. So this year the Democratic interest groups aided by the unrelenting incompetence and corruption of Bush, managed to get more of their guys elected than the Republicans did.

So why would the Democratic politicians actually make a decision in the best interests of the country and against one of their base's stupidest but most passionately held ideas? Is it possible that the Democratic politicians (excluding the 13 senators who voted for this turd) aren't as cynical or corrupt as I think? Or is the part of the Democratic base that favored this non-sense, too small or too poor to care about?
 
I think the Fairness Doctrine for radio is a good idea. I demand that good music get fair play and Nickelback be regulated (or better yet, relegated).
 
Texas said:
The senate just voted 87 to 13 not to attempt to re-instate the FD.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZo8HqKUQ5LkGkTf0CiQtS7WQlQQD96JF8V00
Click to expand...

The vote shows, incidentally, that most democrats don't want this "Fairness" nonsense, either.

The "fairness doctrine" made some sense in a world with three networks owning most of the media market, despite the fact that even then it were a restriction of free speech. Today, it is simply an attempt to force conservative shows off the air.

By the way: even if it is installed and all talk radio stations must broadcast liberal shows, this hardly forces anyone to listen to them, does it?
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
So why would the Democratic politicians actually make a decision in the best interests of the country and against one of their base's stupidest but most passionately held ideas? Is it possible that the Democratic politicians (excluding the 13 senators who voted for this turd) aren't as cynical or corrupt as I think?
Click to expand...

MOST politicians, like most people, are not as corrupt and evil as the newsmen would have them. Corruption is over-exposed since it lets those who write the news -- the newspaper men -- play the part of the hero.
 
Skeptic said:
MOST politicians, like most people, are not as corrupt and evil as the newsmen would have them. Corruption is over-exposed since it lets those who write the news -- the newspaper men -- play the part of the hero.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's true. But the partisan nature of politics and the need to bring home the pork for your district play a significant role (in addition to clear cut corruption) in constraining the temptation that a politician might have to vote in ways he sees as in the best interest of the nation.

So I was just a little surprised by the strength of the vote against this thing. I'd like to think that it suggests that my cynical view of politicians is somewhat misplaced, but it might just be that I had an exaggerated sense of the importance of this issue to the Democratic base and there was very little cost to Democrats who voted against it.
 
Miss_Kitt said:
Here's what it boils down to: "Liberal/leftwing" talk radio stations don't do well. Most of them--and most nationally syndicated programs--are either "Conservative/rightwing" or just strange stuff (like UFO nutjob radio).
Click to expand...

Stuff and non-sense!

The liberal talkers and the people who syndicate their shows do not have the money that dirtbags like Murdock can throw around to force the sale of all but the hamster-powered stations like 1090 AM to him or similar right-nuts.

Allowing the major players to buy up all the good stations was a mistake. I would be cool with just going back to the days when your could own ONE each, TV, FM and AM station in a single market.

Don't even try to tell me that most of the Seattle market would rather listen to the fat deaf eunuch than to Thom Hartmann.

It's all about the privileges of ownership, and the creeps with the money have decided that all we will get on the good signals is right-wing dreck.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Don't even try to tell me that most of the Seattle market would rather listen to the fat deaf eunuch than to Thom Hartmann.

It's all about the privileges of ownership, and the creeps with the money have decided that all we will get on the good signals is right-wing dreck.
Click to expand...

What makes a "good signal" good? Could it be ratings? You may not want to hear that Rush trumps Hartmann, but in the Seattle market, he does...consistently. To beat Rush in the Seattle market (ktth), you have to add up the arbitrons (search seattle market) for both KPTK and KVI. I suppose you can consider that a victory for 'progressive' radio as a whole, in that particular area, but certainly not a victory for Hartmann.
 
leftysergeant said:
Stuff and non-sense!

The liberal talkers and the people who syndicate their shows do not have the money that dirtbags like Murdock can throw around to force the sale of all but the hamster-powered stations like 1090 AM to him or similar right-nuts.

Allowing the major players to buy up all the good stations was a mistake. I would be cool with just going back to the days when your could own ONE each, TV, FM and AM station in a single market.

Don't even try to tell me that most of the Seattle market would rather listen to the fat deaf eunuch than to Thom Hartmann.

It's all about the privileges of ownership, and the creeps with the money have decided that all we will get on the good signals is right-wing dreck.
Click to expand...

Never the fault of the people who can't put up decent shows to compete, it's all because of someone else.

If they were worth listening to, they would be listened to. Simple as that.
 
davefoc said:
Is it possible that the Democratic politicians (excluding the 13 senators who voted for this turd) aren't as cynical or corrupt as I think?
Click to expand...
No, there's more to this story.

The "fairness doctrine" wasn't actually voted down, A Republican Senator tacked the provision on to a bill giving DC a voting representative. It wasn't voted on by itself.

The Dems haven't given up in their quest to wipe the airwaves of opposition, they just won't call it the "fairness doctrine". Sen. Durbin is pushing a bill to force stations to have a certain amount of local programming, a naked attempt to lessen the market for national talk-radio shows.
 
The liberal talkers and the people who syndicate their shows do not have the money that dirtbags like Murdock can throw around to force the sale of all but the hamster-powered stations like 1090 AM to him or similar right-nuts.
Click to expand...

Gee. And to think I thought left-wing radio didn't succeed (so far) because not enough people want to listen to it. Obviously I was misinformed: it's all a right wing conspiracy, of course. How could I have been so blind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom