Fairness Doctrine... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

tafkam -> Fairness Doctrine... (6/12/2008 5:06:00 PM)

We all know what it was, and we know the left would like to see it reinstated.

Good idea or bad? And why?

Go....



galadriel2 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/12/2008 5:13:18 PM)

It is the left, in their hypocrisy, trying to silence the right and appear not to be doing so.

God bless all abundantly,
Galadriel2

....tafkam...I love the quote from Arsenic and Old Lace. That is one of my favorite movies. [:)]



rcjames -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/12/2008 6:19:15 PM)

Would it mean that the right gets equal acess to NPR and Public Television?


Thanks
RC



SonInMe1 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/12/2008 6:39:04 PM)

Read Job.



humbleinspirit -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/12/2008 11:34:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Would it mean that the right gets equal acess to NPR and Public Television?


Thanks
RC


Yes.



rlj -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 12:45:24 AM)

There's no conservatives left so why would anyone need to attack Conservative radio?



SonInMe1 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 8:30:16 AM)

Well...how about a christian on the Howard Stern show.



KatMack -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 8:40:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Would it mean that the right gets equal acess to NPR and Public Television?


Thanks
RC


<sarcasm>Why would that be neccesary? Those are a bastion of fairness and a perfectly balanced presentation of current events!</sarcasm>

--Kat



WesP -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 8:53:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatMack

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Would it mean that the right gets equal acess to NPR and Public Television?


Thanks
RC


<sarcasm>Why would that be neccesary? Those are a bastion of fairness and a perfectly balanced presentation of current events!</sarcasm>

--Kat


[sm=Llol.gif][sm=usa.gif]



PhunkD -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 9:30:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

We all know what it was, and we know the left would like to see it reinstated.

Good idea or bad? And why?

Go....


As a listener of progressive radio, I can tell you that your premise is wrong. Most hosts do not want the fairness doctrine.

What they would like is local ownership of radio stations instead of clear channel owning everything.

This de-regulation came from Clinton.



Sophie11 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 9:42:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PhunkD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

We all know what it was, and we know the left would like to see it reinstated.

Good idea or bad? And why?

Go....


As a listener of progressive radio, I can tell you that your premise is wrong. Most hosts do not want the fairness doctrine.

What they would like is local ownership of radio stations instead of clear channel owning everything.

This de-regulation came from Clinton.


Clear Channel owns stations that they bought and paid for. They are successful because they run programming that is popular. It is not like there are no radio stations left in this country for progressive radio. What they really want is only for the conservative radio broadcasts to have less air time and on fewer stations, period.



colliefan -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 3:31:06 PM)

quote:

What they would like is local ownership of radio stations instead of clear channel owning everything.


Then why isn't George Soros creating his own network of liberal stations? Hint: unless they are underwitten by the taxpayer they loose money.



tafkam -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 4:47:00 PM)

Actually deregulation started in the late 80's, four or five years before Clinton took office....



cog41 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/13/2008 5:23:27 PM)

quote:

Would it mean that the right gets equal acess to NPR and Public Television?




Of course. They'll have the weakest most uninformed conservatives they can find.



FurGodWurLivin -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/14/2008 4:07:37 AM)

Why does Air America keep going bankrupt? It's "progressive radio". Why has Rush Limbaugh been at it for 15 years? Because he's "Conservative Radio"... connection, perhaps?

Unfortunately, since much of the left has catagorized conservatives as also being religious, we wouldn't get very much air time on NPR and public television because that would be a violation of the "seperation of church and state"[:'(] . Too bad there isn't an actual barfing smiley.

Adam



Sophie11 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/14/2008 9:44:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin

Why does Air America keep going bankrupt? It's "progressive radio". Why has Rush Limbaugh been at it for 15 years? Because he's "Conservative Radio"... connection, perhaps?



Right. These progressive leftist radio stations just cannot seem to find an audience willing to listen to their programming. So they are trying to get the government to forcibly give them one. It's despicable.



tafkam -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/14/2008 11:25:20 AM)

For whatever reason, liberals are unable to succeed in the medium of talk radio, so they thereefore must use the police power of government to make sure that stations carry their programming that no one wants to listen to.

Sad, isn't it?



humbleinspirit -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/14/2008 1:21:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cog41

quote:

Would it mean that the right gets equal acess to NPR and Public Television?




Of course. They'll have the weakest most uninformed conservatives they can find.


It would work both ways though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PhunkD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

We all know what it was, and we know the left would like to see it reinstated.

Good idea or bad? And why?

Go....


As a listener of progressive radio, I can tell you that your premise is wrong. Most hosts do not want the fairness doctrine.

What they would like is local ownership of radio stations instead of clear channel owning everything.


Clear Channel doesn't own everything, just much more than everyone else.


quote:

This de-regulation came from Clinton.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

Actually deregulation started in the late 80's, four or five years before Clinton took office....


What Tafkam said.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

For whatever reason, liberals are unable to succeed in the medium of talk radio, so they thereefore must use the police power of government to make sure that stations carry their programming that no one wants to listen to.

Sad, isn't it?






Yes, liberals do not like the fact that conservative talk show hosts are so popular and have so much influence on people, so they are having a hissy fit and trying to regulate it instead.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/15/2008 1:18:10 AM)

quote:

Clear Channel doesn't own everything, just much more than everyone else.


And thats a bad thing. The Tampa market has several of their lousy stations. At least in the music realm they represent everything that is wrong with terrestrial radio. But I certainly do not want the government to step in and "fix it". I just hope that eventually people will want more out of a radio station than crude behavior and microscopic playlists and force Clear Channel to do better.

The Fairness Doctrine works the same way. If Liberals want more access to talk radio airwaves then do a better job winning over listeners. Clear Channel and other big radio companies don't have a conservative bias, they have a profit bias. If a Liberal creates a show that can attract listeners and sell ads radio stations will be all over it.

Its not like Liberals aren't fairly represented in the TV and print medias anyway.

quote:

What they would like is local ownership of radio stations instead of clear channel owning everything.


Honestly I would like that too. But I don't see where it would be beneficial to have the government play a role in this. I'm sure Clear Channel and other big radio corps will just work around any government regulations anyway.



humbleinspirit -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/15/2008 1:21:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

Clear Channel doesn't own everything, just much more than everyone else.


And thats a bad thing. The Tampa market has several of their lousy stations. At least in the music realm they represent everything that is wrong with terrestrial radio. But I certainly do not want the government to step in and "fix it". I just hope that eventually people will want more out of a radio station than crude behavior and microscopic playlists and force Clear Channel to do better.


Fortunately, they are capped at 2 FM's in my area because of Arbitron's definition of what constitutes a radio market. They own a number of rim shotters here so they cannot own any more in Boston.

quote:

The Fairness Doctrine works the same way. If Liberals want more access to talk radio airwaves then do a better job winning over listeners. Clear Channel and other big radio companies don't have a conservative bias, they have a profit bias. If a Liberal creates a show that can attract listeners and sell ads radio stations will be all over it.

Its not like Liberals aren't fairly represented in the TV and print medias anyway.

quote:

What they would like is local ownership of radio stations instead of clear channel owning everything.


Honestly I would like that too. But I don't see where it would be beneficial to have the government play a role in this. I'm sure Clear Channel and other big radio corps will just work around any government regulations anyway.


I agree also, but the way market forces were, locals all sold out when the colglomerates offered big bucks for their stations instead!

This would be a good topic for another discussion. I may start one in Television and Radio.



CT23 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/15/2008 3:41:47 AM)

I heard even the liberal Alan Colmes doesn't want the Fairness Doctrine back.

Wouldn't the "fair" thing be to let media succeed or fail on its own merits? In these days of the internet and tons of radio stations; liberals/conservatives can find what they want to listen to. The government shouldn't be forcing stations to put something on.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/15/2008 9:42:51 AM)

quote:

I heard even the liberal Alan Colmes doesn't want the Fairness Doctrine back.


Of course he doesn't. Colmes may be a Liberal and on several issues I disagree with him but he has integrity. He speaks his mind and he knows that the Fairness Doctrine is unfair and a bad idea.

Colmes has a successful talk radio show and he is a Liberal (albeit not a far left radical one). So it can be done without the government getting involved.



rlj -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/15/2008 1:52:54 PM)

quote:

For whatever reason, liberals are unable to succeed in the medium of talk radio, so they thereefore must use the police power of government to make sure that stations carry their programming that no one wants to listen to.


The only liberal show I ever listened to was Larry King. I didn't listen to him because of his politics I listened to him because he came on in my market after Rush Limbaugh and he would have guests that were interesting. I only had a chance to listen to him on Friday's though because back when I listened to talk radio I worked afternoons. I still remember listening to Doc Rivers and Fred Rogers.

Anyway I used to give about any talk radio host a listen to back when I listened to Limbaugh consistently. It was the success of Rush that got me to give others a listen to - Imus, Bob and Tom, Larry King even some Howard Stern. I did it for a couple of years. What first attracted me to Rush was the fact that there were people who actually thought like I did. What hooked me was the intelligence of the show and his wit. (Oh man does anyone remember Dan's Bake Sale?) It was also after the '92 election when the country took a political turn to the left. Both houses got dem gains, Bush Sr. was voted out, political correctness was taking off and here was someone that convinced me that I wasn't a lunatic that there were lots of people who thought like I did. I used to love the television show to since it came on at 1:35 am and I got home from work about 1:20 am so I had time to take a shower and nuke a pizza. The show was great because he would show video clips, articles pictures and stuff. I'll never forget the footage he showed of Jesse Jackson sounding like Bill Cosby in one rousing and powerful positive speech. Or from the 1993 gay rally in D.C. where some gay men singing "be all that you can be in the army with all of those men in sexy uniforms...." Those were things that I watched on the show in '93 and '94.

The main reason I believe that liberal talk shows fail is liberals don't listen to talk radio as much. Simple demographics really. If they did there would be more liberal talk show hosts. Part of the problem to is many liberals in media are what I would call "ultra-liberals". Many things that ultra-liberals believe in the public wouldn't agree with anyway which we all know. "Today people we'll talk about why your kindergartener should learn masturbation. First however we'll talk about what low-life, selfish people we are for owning cars". The ultra-liberal stuff that many liberals in media preach on and talk about people wouldn't want to listen to.

So why did they (or do they) want to shut down talk radio? Because it is effective and they can't control it. There is a power in talk radio because it is the one source of media that is conservative dominated. They didn't like the fan mail from Rush listeners when he helped leak out some of the garbage in the original Clinton Health Security Act. I'll say it again they want it shut down because they can't control it. It's all about power.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/15/2008 1:59:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT23

I heard even the liberal Alan Colmes doesn't want the Fairness Doctrine back.

Wouldn't the "fair" thing be to let media succeed or fail on its own merits? In these days of the internet and tons of radio stations; liberals/conservatives can find what they want to listen to. The government shouldn't be forcing stations to put something on.

Apparently, you missed the puppet strings that Hannity was marionetting when Colmes said that.

I mean, I think the show would make a bit more sense if Hannity were a ventriloquist, but that's another story.



iluvatar -> RE: Fairness Doctrine... (6/15/2008 5:14:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

The main reason I believe that liberal talk shows fail is liberals don't listen to talk radio as much.


Liberal talk shows fail because liberalism isn't as easily manipulated into black-and-white moral proclamations as conservatism is. Talk radio's success hinges on being able to incite an us-vs-them mentality in its listeners, while at the same time not quite descending to the same level of vitriol that some liberal hosts do. I don't like conservative talk radio, but they're good at what they do.

-Dan.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI