TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I love libruls
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

I love libruls

waaaah waaaaah. Could it be that liberal talk radio doesn't generate any ratings/interest? Let's just cry to the government. I love it when people talk about the "Fairness" Doctrine.

quote:

REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. The new report � entitled �The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio� � raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America�s airwaves. Some key findings: � In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive. � Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk � 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk. � 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive. radiographic2.gif Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains: Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. [�] Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest. 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.

Source: Think Backwards

Fairness doctrine sounds like a violation of Amendment #1

I have a better idea, why don't progressives get some better programs that people actually want to hear?

crazy idea I know...

i think it's a mistake to believe that only conservatives listen to conservative radio. i think i'm somewhat progressive and i listen to a fair amount of the conservative pundits mostly for the entertainment value and not because i necessarily agree with the hosts.

there's almost nothing funnier than listening to a mark levin rant. he cracks me up every time as does sean hannity's simpleminded flag-waving antics. freedom concert? lol. on the other hand, i find rush's egocentric self-agrandising offputing and boring. almost every comment that he makes is prefaced by 'i told you years ago...' it gets old pretty darn fast.

if it's the case that a fair amount of progressives listen to them too for their entertainment value, then i can understand why their rating are so high.

Re: I love libruls

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka waaaah waaaaah. Could it be that liberal talk radio doesn't generate any ratings/interest? Let's just cry to the government. I love it when people talk about the "Fairness" Doctrine. Source: Think Backwards

I think the report is fairly self-explanatory in regards to the arguments you are making. As it states:

quote:

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem.

And why do they fail to explain the problem? Because:

quote:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. [�] Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

IOW, the argument rests upon the idea of the radio market being completely gobbled up by a small handful of corporate conglomerates.

I would think it would be in everyone's interests to have more diversity of market ownership, would it not? Or do you feel that it's ultimately better for everyone to have a given market owned by a select few who've gobbled up everything else underneath and therefore control everything we should hear?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange there's almost nothing funnier than listening to a mark levin rant. he cracks me up every time as does sean hannity's simpleminded flag-waving antics. freedom concert? lol. on the other hand, i find rush's egocentric self-agrandising offputing and boring. almost every comment that he makes is prefaced by 'i told you years ago...' it gets old pretty darn fast.

You are a great American!

I actually think Rush is the funnier out of them all, but Neal Bortz is my favorite. Hannity gets on my nerves a lot of times, not because I think he is wrong, but because I hate the way he approaches things.

Also Shakka,

Well you know why Air America went bankrupt, because they still talk about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. It gets pretty annoyin.h

Re: Re: I love libruls

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think the report is fairly self-explanatory in regards to the arguments you are making. As it states: And why do they fail to explain the problem? Because: IOW, the argument rests upon the idea of the radio market being completely gobbled up by a small handful of corporate conglomerates. I would think it would be in everyone's interests to have more diversity of market ownership, would it not? Or do you feel that it's ultimately better for everyone to have a given market owned by a select few who've gobbled up everything else underneath and therefore control everything we should hear?

So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a shit about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush.

Re: Re: Re: I love libruls

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a shit about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush.

Having to consider both sides of an argument is not incompatible with the free market you like so much. Responsible commentary demands the considering of opposing views. You have to remember information has consequences. Considering these people are distributing information that is critical in decision making they should consider both sides of an argument. Radio, TV, newspapers, etc.. should always consider their role as sources of information when developing their programming/coverage. The 'fairness doctrine' is nothing more than responsible journalism.

Re: Re: Re: I love libruls

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a shit about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. I do support the Fairness Doctrine as it was originally written in law, and not on the relaxation of certain provisions. Certain items in the report are worth mentioning. For example, the Fairness Doctrine itself was never formally repealed. Rather, certain regulations were loosened by the FCC and were upheld by a Circuit Court (though not by the Supreme Court, though I'd concede with today's SCOTUS members it would likely have the same result as that of the Circuit Court). There's a good possibility that the FCC could merely enforce those rules again (like if a Democratic President comes in and appoints new FCC regulators). I'll stop ripping the argument and let it speak for itself from here: [QUOTE]Moreover, the original Communications Act of 1934 still authorizes the FCC to require �reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time� by a legally qualifi ed candidate for federal elective offi ce, and equal opportunities must be afforded all other candidates for that offi ce.13 These obligations come from the same set of concerns from which the Fairness Doctrine arose. And Section 315 of the Communications Act still requires commercial broadcasters �to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of confl icting views of issues of public importance.�14 http://www.americanprogress.org/iss.../talk_radio.pdf p. 6

Furthermore:

quote:

Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. More important, the Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues. The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders. Added to this regulatory structure was the cooperation of the broadcast industry through the National Association of Broadcasters Code of Conduct.15

I say all this to dispel the notion that supporting the doctrine entails some sort of repeal. It's merely enforcing that which is already a law, but has been loosened up somewhat.

And in regards to the listening viewership of talk radio, the report states:

quote:

The second argument put forth to explain the gap between conservative and progressive talk is that station owners are merely providing the programming that the market forces demand. From this perspective, talk radio audiences are just more conservative and are more likely to listen to conservative hosts. This argument is misleading on numerous fronts. Although talk radio audiences tend to be more male, middle-aged, and conservative, research by Pew indicates that this audience is not monolithic� 43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate. 16 The ideological breakdown of the country as a whole during this same period was very similar�36 percent conservative, 21 percent liberal, and 35 percent moderate. It is diffi cult to argue that the existing audience for talk radio is only interested in hearing one side of public debates given the diversity of the existing and potential audience. More importantly, even in markets where progressive talk is considered a success by the industry standards of ratings and revenue, licensees will often broadcast conservative talk on three or four stations compared to one station for progressive talk. For example, in Portland, OR, where progressive talk on KPOJ AM 620 competes effectively with conservative talk on KEX AM 1190, station owners also broadcast conservative talk on KXL AM 750 and KPAM AM 860. Although there is a clear demand and proven success of progressive talk in this market, station owners still elect to stack the airwaves with one-sided broadcasting. As our data shows, the norm under the existing market structure is for radio station licensees to broadcast only conservative talk, a pattern that holds true for more than 90 percent of the stations examined (236 stations out of 257). In Ohio, for example, there are 10 radio markets. In eight of those markets, there is not a single hour of progressive talk. In the two markets that do broadcast a total of six hours of progressive talk (Al Sharpton on two urban talk stations), those hours compete against 52 hours of conservative talk. Clear Channel Communications, the ownership group that has committed the largest number of stations to the progressive format, recently cancelled the only three progressive talk stations in the state of Ohio. When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative�despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows�the market solution has clearly failed to meet audience demand. Even greater deregulation and consolidation of radio station ownership is therefore not likely to meet audience desires or serve the public interest in any meaningful way. p.7

More is explained in detail in the report. Have you read it yet? What parts do you agree or disagree with and why? They also address the "barriers of entry" you mention:

quote:

Our view is that the imbalance in talk radio programming today is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. 8 regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting from pro-forma licensing policies,17 longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously),18 the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming,19 and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management. ....Large, non-local owners aired syndicated programming on a wider scale across their national holdings. Advertising on local stations was marketed and sold by national fi rms, undermining the ability of local owners to compete. Many sold their stations. The number of locally-owned, minority-owned, and female-owned stations was constrained� and the very different programming decisions these owners make were less visible in the market. In short, the removal of ownership limits created artifi cial economies of scale for syndicated programming (dominated by conservative talk). Because of the size of corporate radio holdings, this business model was profi table even if localism declined and local tastes and needs were not suitably matched. At the same time, the long-standing principles of public service that have always come with a free license to use the public airwaves for broadcast radio were in decline. These principles and the regulations they supported were designed to foster localism and a station owner�s commitment to local public service. Emblematic of this commitment was not just the shorter license- renewal requirement of three years but also the renewal process itself. License renewal previously required local engagement with the community� the solicitation of local feedback on programming and accountable public reporting of this input so that the FCC could determine if the broadcaster was upholding its public interest responsibilities. Now licenses are renewed by �postcard,� a stamp in the corner of a scrap of paper now substitutes for all of the local interaction, very little of which is still required by law. Without these policies fostering local responsiveness, the move toward lowest common denominator syndicated programming was facilitated. All of these factors matter tremendously, and they have combined to produce the current state of affairs in the marketplace. p.8

quote:

Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush.

Please try not to lecture me on sane. Listening to Hannity/Savage/Limbaugh/Levin/Church/insert-fascist-Wingnut-talkshowhost here is anything but sane. It's amazing the dichotomy of what's considered "sane" in Wingnut land - bombing the fuck out of anything that moves in the Middle East because they deserve it, and should thusly be converted to Christianity (thanks Ann), bombing and destroying cities and killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians because the Muslim world would be grateful for yet another attack by Bush on another country in the Middle East (i.e. Iran) is the running mantra of these talk show Conservative nutbags who pitch up a lovefest for influential certifiable nuts like Podhoretz:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/c...e.html?id=10882

and is considered "sane" by their standards. Yet questioning the sanity of this Administration and yes, sometimes questioning how they obtained their power in a suspicious recount in Florida (to which some 50% or so voters in the '04 election felt that recount was suspicious as well), as well as inconsistencies in the '04 election brought up were oh so strangely the result of ALL consistencies helped the Republican side.

Yep, a very strange world indeed to hear over the airwaves.

Incidentally, I noticed how that ThinkProgress post has successfully blown up into almost 3,000 posts. You boys did a lovely troll bomb on that one. Congrats all around.

This isn't about giving the left more of a platform to deliver their own message, it's about them trying to limit free speech and the opposing position that is prevalent on talk radio. Sorry, but it's about whiners trying to get the government to step in and choke off the voice of their opposition when they have realized they are powerless to do so. Air America didn't fail because of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It failed because it sucked, as with just about any and all failing enterprises. There is nothing "fair" about the Fairness Doctrine. It is complete and utter horse shit.

The opportunity for opposing views does not require government intervention. It requires an audience that demands it. Apparently that audience is not very large in the realm of talk radio, hence the playing field that exists today. If you listen to any "right-wing" talk radio host, they quite welcome the competition for the explicit purpose that they know that the opposition will whine and pull out the Fairness Doctrine card every time they fail to generate enough of an audience to maintain their radio slot. Boortz has predicted this for over a year now. It's quite ironic really.

Furthermore, there is no real restriction on having people with opposing views of the talk show hosts from calling in and expressing them and engaging the hosts in healthy debate, so I don't really see why it's a relavent argument to bring up in the first place. I listen to plenty of talk radio and I hear plenty of opposing views. It's not always some right-wing lovefest that the left seems to portray it to be.

Another interesting point made today is that the author of the Think Progress article is none other than John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff. Nice timing. Perhaps it's a Hillary conspiracy.

right-wing radio (at least here in australia) is more popular simply because it is over-simplified and geared towards the lowest common denominator. progressive (or "liberal" if you wanna mis-use that term yet again you americans, sheesh) programs are meatier and harder to grasp for the general populace.

edit: oh, and serious LOL at people using the term "left" in here. america's parties are centre right, oh and centre right!

Government has not right to direct the programming of the media. The market should decide. Liberals dominate the TV airwaves, who cares?

Re: Re: Re: Re: I love libruls

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Having to consider both sides of an argument is not incompatible with the free market you like so much.

of course it is if you are mandated to consider it.

thats not even the issue here. it's about a balance of programing and whether or not that can or should be mandated.

quote:

Responsible commentary demands the considering of opposing views.

sure, but why does it have to be though?

quote:

You have to remember information has consequences.

that's immaterial to this argument.

quote:

Considering these people are distributing information that is critical in decision making they should consider both sides of an argument.

most do.
if you are willing to force them to do so however, how does that not make you quasi-fascist?

quote:

The 'fairness doctrine' is nothing more than responsible journalism.

the other side of that argument is it's veiled fascism. i think in the spirit of responsible commentary we should consider both sides of the argument in order to distribute the information that is critical for others in their decision making because remember, information has consequences.

if we don't see eye to eye on that well, thats ok too. i'm not the boss of you.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right-wing radio (at least here in australia) is more popular simply because it is over-simplified and geared towards the lowest common denominator. progressive (or "liberal" if you wanna mis-use that term yet again you americans, sheesh) programs are meatier and harder to grasp for the general populace.

I certainly wouldn't call the left any more intelligent than the 'lowest common denominator' on the right here lol!

I don't watch or listen to any of these shows, because that would be fueling the advertisement industry that keeps them in business.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I don't watch or listen to any of these shows, because that would be fueling the advertisement industry that keeps them in business.

So you'd rather listen to radio you pay for?

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers So you'd rather listen to radio you pay for?

Do you really need to with Podcasting these days?

oh this is just f**king great.

listen to Senator Inhofe >here<

quote:

BREITBART.TV EXCLUSIVE: Appearing on John Ziegler's evening show on KFI 640 AM in LA, U.S. Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.

I WEEP FOR THE FREE MARKET IF THAT C**T GETS ELECTED TO THE HIGHEST OFFICE.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo oh this is just f**king great. listen to Senator Inhofe >here< I WEEP FOR THE FREE MARKET IF THAT C**T GETS ELECTED TO THE HIGHEST OFFICE.

Oh FFS, he said what?:

quote:

REITBART.TV EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.

Ahh, and I heard our dear Senator Inhofe has a penis growing out of his elbow, which is why he wears tighter shirts underneath his suit.

Need I say anything more about how much I love the Conservative talk show hearsay and innuendo? Jesus I'm wouldn't be surprised if the Conservative talk show listeners believe Hillary was derived from a popped zit off an alien and is here to suck the blood out of all your babies. How many more times has Hannity come on to discuss Hillary with yet another bashing book from the Righties?

Anyway, I'll get to your comments tomorrow Shakka. Hope everyone had a terrific Summer Solstace!!!

quote:

� In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

And you just know that 91% of weekday talk radio programming spends most of its time whinging about the liberal bias in the media. That's where a well-honed persecution complex and a tenuous grasp on reality will get you, I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Need I say anything more about how much I love the Conservative talk show hearsay and innuendo?

yes. you need to say that the Senator was lying, not just implicit. b/c he realy couldn't have been more explicit in what he said.

this thread or subject as a whole, really, isn't about the content of Conservative talk radio. it stands up to scrutiny all the time (i would expect it to be) it's about threats against it's freedom to express the content.

i believe it puts the implied liberal foundations under scrutiny.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That's where a well-honed persecution complex and a tenuous grasp on reality will get you, I suppose.

thats funny. i could apply a similar analysis to probably 90% of liberals who don't believe in an overwhelming, worldwide left-wing bias in MSM.


am i paranoid or are you?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes. you need to say that the Senator was lying, not just implicit. b/c he realy couldn't have been more explicit in what he said.

While at the same time, you and especially Inhofe need to say that the little growth on his elbow is not a new penis which is why he's wearing tighter shirts in order to conceal his abnormality.

See, these rumor games are fun. They can go on and on and on and on.....

quote:

this thread or subject as a whole, really, isn't about the content of Conservative talk radio. it stands up to scrutiny all the time

The content stands up to scrutiny? Surely you jest?:

www.mediamatters.com

If there's content that your former GOP Clinton-hating bitch David Brock is incorrect about when he posts criticisms of various media figures (including Conservative media heads), by all means discuss them.

quote:

(i would expect it to be) it's about threats against it's freedom to express the content.

Which really is an interesting argument considering that is exactly what the report in Think Progress is arguing - by a meltdown and consolidation of radio media to a select few corporate heads, all of the sudden the number of voices in talk radio is reduced down to a select few. This is exactly what occurred to a local radio station here in Lawrence, Kansas. It was a local AM talk show and sports radio station that broadcasted primarily local news, but got bought out by a bigger corp. I know, shit happens, and they promised to keep things local.

But then a funny thing happened - Bill O'Reilly started perpetrating in with his show, 2 hours of it. Then one day, we all got to hear Neil Boorz on before O'Reilly. Some of us wondered what was up. Some of us complained (actually, given that the voting block in our town is majority liberal and progressive, many complained). Those complaints eventually led to a listening of Ed Shultz - 2 hours of it after O'Reilly. Ratings went up, a balance was created, and everyone was full of glee.

Then Schultz got reduced down to one hour for no reason, even when the ratings were up. Next thing you knew, Shultz was reduced down to nonexistence, and then quietly replaced by a no-name local Conservative guy. Hey, he was "local" goes the argument, but now from pretty much all day until 4:00 you have nothing but Conservative radio. It defied the ratings, and it defied "balance", but the company controlled the reins and they got to choose.

And that is exactly what occurs elsewhere. The smaller outlets are gobbled up and taken over by companies that can control all messages they choose going out over the airwaves.

quote:

i believe it puts the implied liberal foundations under scrutiny.

Uhh, yeah. Whatever you say there bub. So if I'm to understand you right, you don't want to discuss the content that these Conservative blowhards discuss because that's not what this thread is about, but instead you want to discuss opening up the airwaves and actually ALLOWING MORE FREE SPEECH across the board (conservative and liberal alike) with stricter regulation that gives a more even playing field for smaller businesses is somehow putting the implied liberal foundations under scrutiny?

Alright, I'll roll with that one - so allowing smaller businesses to compete with more equal footing with larger businesses is a bad thing? Hmmm, what a bummer indeed......

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats funny. i could apply a similar analysis to probably 90% of liberals who don't believe in an overwhelming, worldwide left-wing bias in MSM. am i paranoid or are you?

You're quite paranoid and highly delusional to believe so.

I absolutely love those claims of librul media bias. Granted, it slaps the face of reality, especially when discussing how we got into this gawd aweful mess of a war among other things, but it's entertaining nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka This isn't about giving the left more of a platform to deliver their own message, it's about them trying to limit free speech and the opposing position that is prevalent on talk radio. Sorry, but it's about whiners trying to get the government to step in and choke off the voice of their opposition when they have realized they are powerless to do so. Air America didn't fail because of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It failed because it sucked, as with just about any and all failing enterprises.

I have to grant you that Air America had its problems of content. Some of their shows just drove me nuts. FFS, Jerry fucking Springer? I actually tried listening to him once or twice when I had Sirius. As much as I tended to agree with the substance of his arguments, it was like listening to a drama queen screetching her nails on a chalkboard. He enunciated every fucking single word.

It was tough, and he wasn't the only show that drove me bonkers. But as I said, I haven't listened to Air America or the radio show hosts on it for some time, but despite the bankruptcy it's still running quite well, is it not?

quote:

There is nothing "fair" about the Fairness Doctrine. It is complete and utter horse shit. The opportunity for opposing views does not require government intervention. It requires an audience that demands it. Apparently that audience is not very large in the realm of talk radio, hence the playing field that exists today.

Actually the report addresses the argument of supposedly restoring the Doctrine and the straw man argument of that somehow bringing back more liberal commentary:

quote:

[T]he Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues. The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders. Added to this regulatory structure was the cooperation of the broadcast industry through the National Association of Broadcasters Code of Conduct Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.

The report (which again, have you read it yet?) outlines that the Doctrine itself will not rebalance the radio. Rather, it's the concentration of media conglomerates and ineffective regulation is what has hurt more local businesses.

Really now, I thought you Conservatives were all for helping out smaller businesses? Do they not deserve a better footing for their product, especially when a relaxing of certain rules essentially gobbled them up almost entirely? As one of the authors of the report stated:

quote:

�If we break up concentrated ownership, and encourage greater local accountability over radio licensing, and still end up with lots of conservative talk, then so be it. We don�t think this will happen but at least the playing field would have been made more level.�

I really don't understand the fear you have here for this. It does exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about - it gives more voices to others (i.e. FREE SPEECH). But for some strange reason, you Conservatives do not like that......

quote:

If you listen to any "right-wing" talk radio host, they quite welcome the competition for the explicit purpose that they know that the opposition will whine and pull out the Fairness Doctrine card every time they fail to generate enough of an audience to maintain their radio slot. Boortz has predicted this for over a year now. It's quite ironic really.

Yes I listen to Conservative radio for shits and giggles, and their "balance" and "welcome" of competition with open arms is quite amusing, to say the least. Again, take a look at the actual argument itself rather than run to the straw man about forcing more liberal voices over the air. The argument rests entirely on allowing smaller businesses to compete better by actually ENFORCING the rules already laid out but have been eased. If the concentrated ownership is broken up a bit more to allow more LOCAL voices to be heard, and IF those voices continue to trend heavily towards Conservative talking points, then so be it.

From that vantage point, what is there really to fear?

quote:

Furthermore, there is no real restriction on having people with opposing views of the talk show hosts from calling in and expressing them and engaging the hosts in healthy debate, so I don't really see why it's a relavent argument to bring up in the first place. I listen to plenty of talk radio and I hear plenty of opposing views. It's not always some right-wing lovefest that the left seems to portray it to be.

Please stop. That's got to be one of the weakest arguments you've given here. The calling screeners for those shows are borderline hilarious in of themselves (I've tried numerous times myself). Hannity kills me on this regard. Not only does his screener filter out any educated opposing view, but deliberately grabs the most crazy, screaming liberal available with no substantive view to jump in as an "opposing voice" to supposedly "counter" Hannity.

And that is what you call a "fair" balance - a screetching sound of opposition deliberately filtered out by the screeners versus actually owning the show and controlling the entire message and direction of that show.

And yes, it is a fucking lovefest on those shows. Limbaugh is by far and away the worst, but Hannity comes in a close second. It's fucking painful, but it keeps me awake on my commuting drive to and from school..

quote:

Another interesting point made today is that the author of the Think Progress article is none other than John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff. Nice timing. Perhaps it's a Hillary conspiracy.

Say, where'd you get that idea?:

http://levin.nationalreview.com/pos...Tg2M2U3NmQyYWE=

ThinkProgress addressed this notion:

quote:

The Center for American Progress, headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, is one group. Free Press is its own, distinct group. The report was a collaboration between these two progressive nonprofit organizations. Perhaps Levin can make clear whether he thinks Free Press is part of the Clinton conspiracy, or was duped into collaborating on the report. Additionally, CAP does not coordinate with any campaign, and Levin offers no evidence � other than his �guess� � that the report�s �purpose� was to �help Hillary Clinton.� The real purpose of the report was to highlight the imbalance in talk radio and propose remedies. ThinkProgress also spoke with Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, who issued this response to Levin: quote: As executive director of Free Press, I was surprised to learn on the National Review Web site that my organization was part of the Center for American Progress. While we did work with CAP on this study of talk radio programming, as well as issues like Community Internet, a simple Google search would have showed that Free Press is an independent, nonpartisan organization. We don�t take money from any political party or corporation, and we have teamed up on different media policy issues with everyone from MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition to the ACLU, the Parents Television Council and the American Library Association. Last I checked, we were even working with The National Review itself on a campaign to stop unfair postal rate hikes that threaten smaller publications and opinion journals. If we can get those rate hikes reversed, hopefully NRO.com will be able to hire more fact-checkers. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/21/levin-radio/

Over 4,000 messages on that post now. You boys did a terrific professional hit on that one. The vitriol on some of those posts would make Coulter even blush. But hey, it's free speech, and trolls are annoying as shit but still can post - hardly what could be said for almost every single Conservative blog out there (some of the biggest ones don't even allow comments, do they now?).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.