Honest question – how long will right wing radio "be allowed" to exist?

[Bob]

There is too much money at stake, and those in government "right" and left, who need to reign without pesky questions from serfs. My guess they will taken off the air within 8 years. There is no way they can or will allow an opposing view – as Michelle said “he will force you out of your comfort zone” Aint that the truth? Government directed sources for healthcare, news, and the means of production is the goal. I know "he doesnt want own" all of these things, but Hell, Congress is willing to put their jobs at stake for the most recent power grab. And as Major Garret is one of the few that will even attempt to question (out of the mainstream media) he feels confident he can make more serfs at a faster rate than American's will wake up to Socialist transformation. Christian radio will be targeted afterward – I mean, think about what a violation of church and state that is – to use the public airwaves to “promote” a religion? (Like those using the argument honor, read or respect any of the founders) If they did read wholesale, instead of selective nibbling they would be forced into an ideological reversal.

Under the amazingly hypocritical argument of justice, and the equal distribution of minority views using the radio medium, radio stations will be “nudged” into different formats. It will not be the fairness doctrine approach spoke about. Checkout the latest of Obama’s Czars, who oversees the FCC, and what he has said about forgetting about using the Fairness Doctrine to silence alternative media. They will use the argument of localism and fairness in minority ownership of radio stations – those that don’t comply will taxed out of the equation. Dismiss, dismiss, but unlike many who post here, I can back it up. Every time, its the words of these little tyrants in embryo that condemn them.

[Northman]

Right Wing radio wont be going anywhere.

[Dukes]

It wouldn't surprise me if it's gone by the end of Obama's first term.

[tnedator]

The fairness doctrine (or hush Rush as it was informally called during the last push), the only way they can get rid of conservative talk radio, is a double edge sword.

If they go after talk radio with the fairness doctrine, then they expose the networks to being prevented from presenting only liberal viewpoints, or primarily liberal viewpoints.

Clearly, the negative Republican stories, combined with the nearly all positive coverage of Democratic candidates was a major factor in the election. If the farness doctrine is reinstated the networks will be called on that and wouldn't be allowed to present such biased coverage.

Now, the left might consider that a fair tradeoff, kill conservative talk radio (or force them to put on liberal hosts, even if they don't draw listeners), but it will mean the networks (nightly news, weekly news/magazine shows, etc.) will have to stop promoting liberal causes.

[Bob]

The fairness doctrine (or hush Rush as it was informally called during the last push), the only way they can get rid of conservative talk radio, is a double edge sword.

If they go after talk radio with the fairness doctrine, then they expose the networks to being prevented from presenting only liberal viewpoints, or primarily liberal viewpoints.

Clearly, the negative Republican stories, combined with the nearly all positive coverage of Democratic candidates was a major factor in the election. If the farness doctrine is reinstated the networks will be called on that and wouldn't be allowed to present such biased coverage.

Now, the left might consider that a fair tradeoff, kill conservative talk radio (or force them to put on liberal hosts, even if they don't draw listeners), but it will mean the networks (nightly news, weekly news/magazine shows, etc.) will have to stop promoting liberal causes.

I dont think so, the line of "right and left" will simply be moved -- on the radical right will be folks like Dobbs, and JFK Dems -- on the left will be...the usual government directed media ilk. Look no further than how the painted healthcare protesters to know that this is not about what is ethical or true -- its about what can be accomplished, and done as quickly as possible -- the quick part can only happen if 1/3 the country is no longer provided with easy access to an alternative view point. Some tradititional Liberals might actually standup and speak out against this basic infringement of rights, but most have come to "hate" the ideas of converatives so much, that they will not see the long-term implications to their own freedom. There are those on the right who woudl do the same, but "God Given" rights to choose what you believe and think puts restraints on how far some of us are willing to go. As rights for many (not all) of those with a liberal mindset are mearly extentions of government given rights, they can be retracted without consideration of higher, unalterable rights.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Right wing wackos on the airwaves will help Obama get re-elected. Any objective person not braiwashed already can listen to these nuts and intuitively know that whatever they believe, you just really want to go the opposite direction. It's like when the Klan comes out and offers their endorsment...guilt by association.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Right wing wackos on the airwaves will help Obama get re-elected. Any objective person not braiwashed already can listen to these nuts and intuitively know that whatever they believe, you just really want to go the opposite direction. It's like when the Klan comes out and offers their endorsment...guilt by association.

:yep: Ha!

The more bullsh*t slingers like Rehab Rush, Hannity, mAnn Coulter, et al, spew their idiocy, the faster they hasten the GOP's descent to hell in a hand basket.

Long live right-wing radio! :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/hc-radio-no-idea.jpg
</center>

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Honest question – how long will right wing radio "be allowed" to exist?As long as there is still enough right wing/religious right base listening to that crap.

[tnedator]

As long as there is still enough right wing/religious right base listening that crap.

First, that is a vast over-simplification of their listening audience. Even if some of the radio hosts are far right, their audience is more diverse.

Second, as to "as long as enough .... listening" that's the way it should be. I'm sure you would agree that the government should not be censoring and controlling the media.

[alkemical]

as long as there is money and consumers.....it won't go away. It's also a tool for tools. divide and conquer!

[TailgateNut]

Rush has to be able to support his drug habits, and his BASE is dumb enough to enable him to do so.

[Bob]

Right wing wackos on the airwaves will help Obama get re-elected. Any objective person not braiwashed already can listen to these nuts and intuitively know that whatever they believe, you just really want to go the opposite direction. It's like when the Klan comes out and offers their endorsment...guilt by association.

I dont mind the mentality of "letting the kooks speak, will only help us." Maybe it will help to drive voters on way or another, but there is something bigger at stake in free speech. I dont think that your view is shared by most on the extreme left and up of the political spectrum. I think we have reached a tipping point in America. Even your argument, if really believed demonstrates what has been the trend. "Like the Klan" thus the implication is that anyone who opposes does so because of racist reasons, rather than stricly ideological ones, and to shut anyone of this stripe down, would only be doing the comunity a favor, as hate speech cant be protected can it?

[Bob]

First, that is a vast over-simplification of their listening audience. Even if some of the radio hosts are far right, their audience is more diverse.

Second, as to "as long as enough .... listening" that's the way it should be. I'm sure you would agree that the government should not be censoring and controlling the media.

He's just a capitalist...

[Bob]

Rush has to be able to support his drug habits, and his BASE is dumb enough to enable him to do so.

I wonder under a public "option" if he will get ready access? Just sayin...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's also a tool for tools. divide and conquer!

It's definitely dividing and conquering the GOP insofar as the repigs know the whack job fringe who still buy into Oxycontin Boy's Orwellian bullsh*t aren't a large enough base to deliver elections. :~ohyah!:

[Garcia Bronco]

As long as the first amendment is still there.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Even your argument, if really believed demonstrates what has been the trend. "Like the Klan" thus the implication is that anyone who opposes does so because of racist reasons, rather than stricly ideological ones, and to shut anyone of this stripe down, would only be doing the comunity a favor, as hate speech cant be protected can it?
You're assuming I chose the Klan comparison to identify right wingnut radio with racist motives, which I didn't. I was merely looking for an extrme example. I do consider these morons racists, but my reference to the Klan has to do with comparing uncomfortable public image problems in general, rather than something specific to racism. My point is this; when the Klan (or lets use the ACLU since that fits also) comes out publically in favor of an organization, candidate, movement, etc...it automatically damages the object of their affection in the minds of the public. People reason, "If _________ is in favor of it, it must be bad." The middle of the poliltical pectrum is where the battle lies, and these numbskulls are foreiting it daily with their diatribes.

As I noted, I love right wingnut radio. It's comedic, entertaining and does more to damage their cause than it does to further it. I think of them like I do Al Davis...may they live long and prosper. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The middle of the poliltical pectrum is where the battle lies, and these numbskulls are foreiting it daily with their diatribes.

:yep: Ha!

Instead of taking a hard look at how and why their party screwed the pooch, they just stay in attack mode 24/7. (Just like the right-wing pinheads on this board who post Obama attack threads all day long, i.e., the same people who gave Bush a pass for the frat boy's every fraud and felony.)

The good news is that the more energy they spend attacking, the less energy they have to regroup/strategize their way out of the hole they've dug for themselves. :~ohyah!:

[Rohirrim]

First, we take Manhattan... then we take Berlin!

[Bob]

As long as the first amendment is still there.

Can you think of some examples when the Consitution has been ignored lately? If "negitive rights" as Obama described them are ignored, and if the Surprime Court chooses not to excercise their responsbility to see a case, then government has made a choice to no longer be as careful a steward of the people's rights.

How about ignoring private contracts between two entities? This admin put car unions in front of those, who should have been before them (in Indiana) I believe it was a teachers pension group.

[Bob]

Did LA say something? talk about a paid rep mentality...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Second, as to "as long as enough .... listening" that's the way it should be. I'm sure you would agree that the government should not be censoring and controlling the media.They absolutely have to and have been since 1934.

[tnedator]

They absolutely have to and have been since 1934.

Are you talking about news media or TV shows? Also, how have they been censoring the news media? And, why is that a good thing?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Are you talking about news media or TV shows? Also, how have they been censoring the news media? And, why is that a good thing?Anything on TV/radio including news broadcasts are government regulated for good reasons. The extent/degree of that regulation is open for debate though.

[Bronx33]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/hc-radio-no-idea.jpg
</center>



:rofl: good god i bet you watch msnbc and all the other politically biased tv stations with popcorn and mineral water you wouldn't want to broden you mind and atleast try to get the whole picture you just stay nice and safe in your little box with a computer.

[epicSocialism4tw]

There is too much money at stake, and those in government "right" and left, who need to reign without pesky questions from serfs. My guess they will taken off the air within 8 years. There is no way they can or will allow an opposing view – as Michelle said “he will force you out of your comfort zone” Aint that the truth? Government directed sources for healthcare, news, and the means of production is the goal. I know "he doesnt want own" all of these things, but Hell, Congress is willing to put their jobs at stake for the most recent power grab. And as Major Garret is one of the few that will even attempt to question (out of the mainstream media) he feels confident he can make more serfs at a faster rate than American's will wake up to Socialist transformation. Christian radio will be targeted afterward – I mean, think about what a violation of church and state that is – to use the public airwaves to “promote” a religion? (Like those using the argument honor, read or respect any of the founders) If they did read wholesale, instead of selective nibbling they would be forced into an ideological reversal.

Under the amazingly hypocritical argument of justice, and the equal distribution of minority views using the radio medium, radio stations will be “nudged” into different formats. It will not be the fairness doctrine approach spoke about. Checkout the latest of Obama’s Czars, who oversees the FCC, and what he has said about forgetting about using the Fairness Doctrine to silence alternative media. They will use the argument of localism and fairness in minority ownership of radio stations – those that don’t comply will taxed out of the equation. Dismiss, dismiss, but unlike many who post here, I can back it up. Every time, its the words of these little tyrants in embryo that condemn them.

I think that its fair to say that many of the folks that are in power positions in the modern democratic party view the legal establishment of the US as something that is to be manipulated. That the Constitution is something that can be overlooked and worked around if it doesnt fit modern trends.

Democrats know full well that much of the populace of the country disagrees with their platform in one way or another. I'm sure that many democrats are becoming concerned with the tendancy for the modern incarnation of the party to try to cram legislation down the throats of Americans whether they want it or not. It has happened with the bailouts, cap and trade, and now the healthcare issue. Its going to be difficult for them to gain the trust of the people and to gain traction on anything from here forward. Theyll need a good distraction, and I think that Afghanistan will be it.

I think that removing talk radio is dangerous for the Dems. We all know that they want to do it, and that they arent concerned about free speech unless arguing for it gives them some sort of advantage. What we have seen with the tea party folks and other people who do not want to continue to lose more of their income to the federal govt is that they are more politically aware than they have been in a long time. Money issues have woken them up. I think that it would be disasterous for our country for the Dems to try to provoke conservatives even further by eliminating their only large-scale media source. Those people are the type who would storm Washington and get shot in the streets.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:rofl: good god i bet you watch msnbc and all the other politically biased tv stations with popcorn and mineral water you wouldn't want to broden you mind and atleast try to get the whole picture you just stay nice and safe in your little box with a computer.

Ha ha ha! ROFL!

This from a member of the ever-shrinking hard right fringe who spent the last eight years drinking the Bush Kool-Aid.

Too funny.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ha ha ha! ROFL!

This from a member of the ever-shrinking hard right fringe who spent the last eight years drinking the Bush Kool-Aid.

Too funny.


I see that you've come back into action now that the party you work for is royally screwing things up despite having complete control over legislature. You are so predictable.

Hilarious!

Also, quit with the off-base attacks on people who you know nothing about.

All you do is quote-then-spam, quote-then-spam...ad infinitum.

Just so everyone is clear...LABF is about to start in with the Bush cartoons to try to derail this thread and any other on the board that opposes anything that the dems are doing.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I think that its fair to say that many of the folks that are in power positions in the modern democratic party view the legal establishment of the US as something that is to be manipulated. That the Constitution is something that can be overlooked and worked around if it doesnt fit modern trends.

What?

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2008/06/scalia.jpg

[mhgaffney]

All you have to do to expose this thread as BS -- is to turn on the radio.

In my estimation about 90% of talk radio hosts are right wing nut jobs. They are there because most radio is owned by right wingers -- not lefties.

I know of only one true left wing station -- KPFA Pacifica -- with a few affiliates around the country. That's it.

The poster is delusional.

[cutthemdown]

As long as they get listeners and make a profit.

[TailgateNut]

As long as they get listeners and make a profit.

....and as long as there are single cell rightards, they'll have an audience.

[cutthemdown]

....and as long as there are single cell rightards, they'll have an audience.

You act like dillwads on the left have no followers.

[tnedator]

You act like dillwads on the left have no followers.

Well, even the heavily subidized Air America, the liberal answer to Rush, Michael Reagan and other conservative talk show hosts, failed miserably. The left was convinced that the only reason that the right had a corner on talk radio, was because was the far right radio station owners wouldn't put a liberal on the air.

So, Air America is founded, and they have their all star lineup of liberals on radio stations across the country (around 100 or more in all the top markets) and it fails miserably and they go bankrupt.

So, since they weren't able to compete in the market, even heavily subsidized by fund raising and capital infusions by liberals, they want to shut down the conservative talk show hosts that actually have an audience that wants to listen to them.

[ElwayMD]

All you have to do to expose this thread as BS -- is to turn on the radio.

In my estimation about 90% of talk radio hosts are right wing nut jobs. They are there because most radio is owned by right wingers -- not lefties.

I know of only one true left wing station -- KPFA Pacifica -- with a few affiliates around the country. That's it.

The poster is delusional.

Hilarious!

LOL at Gaff calling another poster delusional.

Most radio is owned by large corporations (clear channel communications anyone). They only care about one thing...profit. If talk radio wasn't making a profit it wouldn't be on the air (see Air America). It's been proven that right leaning radio makes a profit. Leftist radio does not since all you have to do is turn on NPR, or any major news network aside from Fox. The power doesn't lie in the owners of radio the power lies in the listener. Ratings and advertising revenue dictate what shows fail and what shows suceed. That lies squarely on the listening public.

[Dudeskey]

as long as there is money and consumers.....it won't go away. It's also a tool for tools. divide and conquer!

My sentiments exactly...™

[Rohirrim]

Hilarious!

LOL at Gaff calling another poster delusional.

Most radio is owned by large corporations (clear channel communications anyone). They only care about one thing...profit. If talk radio wasn't making a profit it wouldn't be on the air (see Air America). It's been proven that right leaning radio makes a profit. Leftist radio does not since all you have to do is turn on NPR, or any major news network aside from Fox. The power doesn't lie in the owners of radio the power lies in the listener. Ratings and advertising revenue dictate what shows fail and what shows suceed. That lies squarely on the listening public.

Or it's because those on the Left think for themselves, investigate numerous sources of information, and make their own decisions. The Rightards have to tune in talk radio to find out what their opinions are. ;D

[Dukes]

Or it's because those on the Left think for themselves, investigate numerous sources of information, and make their own decisions. The Rightards have to tune in talk radio to find out what their opinions are. ;D

:giggle:

[cutthemdown]

Well, even the heavily subidized Air America, the liberal answer to Rush, Michael Reagan and other conservative talk show hosts, failed miserably. The left was convinced that the only reason that the right had a corner on talk radio, was because was the far right radio station owners wouldn't put a liberal on the air.

So, Air America is founded, and they have their all star lineup of liberals on radio stations across the country (around 100 or more in all the top markets) and it fails miserably and they go bankrupt.

So, since they weren't able to compete in the market, even heavily subsidized by fund raising and capital infusions by liberals, they want to shut down the conservative talk show hosts that actually have an audience that wants to listen to them.

My theory is right wingers like to listen to right wingers. Left wingers like to listen to right wingers because they enjoy being pissed off.

That leaves not many to listen to the left.

[cutthemdown]

Or it's because those on the Left think for themselves, investigate numerous sources of information, and make their own decisions. The Rightards have to tune in talk radio to find out what their opinions are. ;D

I could maybe buy into that except i hear more about what Rush said today from my liberal friends then from my right leaning friends.

My right leaning guys always busy working and don't have time for it. The left, well they are teachers etc with tons of time off in the summer to be upset.

[Rohirrim]

My theory is right wingers like to listen to right wingers. Left wingers like to listen to right wingers because they enjoy being pissed off.

That leaves not many to listen to the left.

Given how many people in America are on Xanax, Zoloft and Prozac, I'm amazed that anybody gets pissed off about anything. ;D

[Rohirrim]

I could maybe buy into that except i hear more about what Rush said today from my liberal friends then from my right leaning friends.

My right leaning guys always busy working and don't have time for it. The left, well they are teachers etc with tons of time off in the summer to be upset.

Actually, one of my best friends is the most liberal guy on Earth and he listens to Rush every day while he's driving around. In his job, he spends a lot of time driving. I've asked him why he does it and he says it gets him all worked up. So I guess he's riding up and down the highways of Colorado screaming at his radio. Ha!

[cutthemdown]

Actually, one of my best friends is the most liberal guy on Earth and he listens to Rush every day while he's driving around. In his job, he spends a lot of time driving. I've asked him why he does it and he says it gets him all worked up. So I guess he's riding up and down the highways of Colorado screaming at his radio. Ha!

Yep. I think many liberals just used to being the underdog? the rebel? when they get in power really its not that great for them!!! LOL, they really love fighting the establishment more then being the power. IMO.

So yeah they would rather listen to Rush call Obama a Kenyan, then some lib call Rush a big fat hippo.

Me I never listen to anything but the traffic report, or music when I'm driving.

[cutthemdown]

Maybe a good radio show would be 2 guys that hate eachother.

You know a liberal and a conservative who hate each other, and who take calls from both sides.

I'm sure they have that already but I am ignorant on whose who in talk radio.

The view on TV sort of like that with hens instead of men.

[tnedator]

I could maybe buy into that except i hear more about what Rush said today from my liberal friends then from my right leaning friends.
.

You know, until you posted that, I hadn't thought about it, but your are right. It's only when Rush is hammered in the press for something he says, or someone is attacking Rush on here or at work, that I even here about or think about Rush. Haven't listened to even a portion of his show in over 10 years.

[tnedator]

On a side note, DirecTV has these apps now, weather radar and things like that. One of them is the "what's Hot" app, and it shows the top five shows on DirecTV right now -- who's watching what.

Right now:
The Most Popular Shows on DIRECTV as of 4:26 PM
1. NCIS USA
2. Bones TNT
3. Glen Beck FNC (glenn beck isn't hosting the show today)
4. The suite life on deck Disney
5 Lonesome Dove AMC

[cutthemdown]

You know, until you posted that, I hadn't thought about it, but your are right. It's only when Rush is hammered in the press for something he says, or someone is attacking Rush on here or at work, that I even here about or think about Rush. Haven't listened to even a portion of his show in over 10 years.

I actually can't remember ever hearing him actually during his show. I only hear snippets here and there from people reporting on things he is saying.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I see that you've come back into action now that the party you work for is royally screwing things up....blah blah blah...

I see you are still the personification of that old adage about neurotics building castles in the sky while psychotics live in them. :mullet1: :crazy:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cartoon-beck-sham-wow.gif

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cartoon-beck-sham-wow.gif

Here come the LABF propaganda images!

Right when things start to go south for his beloved party, LABF goes into spam action! :rofl:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here come the LABF propaganda images!

Right when things start to go south for his beloved party, LABF goes into spam action! :rofl:

Nice to see that political satire at the far-right's expense still makes you dance like a trained monkey. :welcome:

[mhgaffney]

Hilarious!

LOL at Gaff calling another poster delusional.

Most radio is owned by large corporations (clear channel communications anyone). They only care about one thing...profit. If talk radio wasn't making a profit it wouldn't be on the air (see Air America). It's been proven that right leaning radio makes a profit. Leftist radio does not since all you have to do is turn on NPR, or any major news network aside from Fox. The power doesn't lie in the owners of radio the power lies in the listener. Ratings and advertising revenue dictate what shows fail and what shows suceed. That lies squarely on the listening public.

You think NPR is left?

You must be on drugs. Maybe once upon a time NPR was moderately left of center -- but no more. For a long time NPR has relied on funding from some conservative foundations -- which explains their toadying support for Bush and the war machine.

As you stated -- radio is controlled by large corporations. So, you will not hear any criticism, worthy of the name, of the military industrial complex - Wall Street power elite.

In case you haven't understood, this is a BIG problem -- because the American people cannot made good decisions on a whole range of issues if they do not have accurate information.

Today in the US we have fascism -- the integration of government and private corporations. This explains why the vast majority of the radio stations kiss ass -- why they served as mouthpieces for criminals like Bush, Cheney, etc

Obama is a weird bird -- because he is treated on the airwaves as a dangerous left wing socialist -- when in fact Obama is carrying out the fascist state-corporate agenda no less than Bush.

The war not only went on but under Obama has expanded. This is all you need to know to understand that Obama = Bush-lite. Different color of skin -- but the same policies on the key issues.

Obama is doing the bidding of his masters on Wall Street no less than Bush.

[alkemical]

Hilarious!

LOL at Gaff calling another poster delusional.

Most radio is owned by large corporations (clear channel communications anyone). They only care about one thing...profit. If talk radio wasn't making a profit it wouldn't be on the air (see Air America). It's been proven that right leaning radio makes a profit. Leftist radio does not since all you have to do is turn on NPR, or any major news network aside from Fox. The power doesn't lie in the owners of radio the power lies in the listener. Ratings and advertising revenue dictate what shows fail and what shows suceed. That lies squarely on the listening public.

as long as there is money and consumers.....it won't go away. It's also a tool for tools. divide and conquer!


Hmmm, i disagree in some ways:

You are also TOLD what to think. Programming isn't a time slot. It's not just a market, but it's a market we are sort of driven into by several factors. It's a bit more complicated than just an economics lesson - that does factor - but to think that there aren't deeper issues is a bit naive as well.

[Bob]

They absolutely have to and have been since 1934.

They have been given authority over what is seen as vulger, to levie fines etc. but that should not extend to regulate political speech.

[Bob]

I see that you've come back into action now that the party you work for is royally screwing things up despite having complete control over legislature. You are so predictable.

Hilarious!

Also, quit with the off-base attacks on people who you know nothing about.

All you do is quote-then-spam, quote-then-spam...ad infinitum.

Just so everyone is clear...LABF is about to start in with the Bush cartoons to try to derail this thread and any other on the board that opposes anything that the dems are doing.

LA is only one of two I put on ingore -- he is unable of thinking outside right and left terms.

[Bob]

Well, even the heavily subidized Air America, the liberal answer to Rush, Michael Reagan and other conservative talk show hosts, failed miserably. The left was convinced that the only reason that the right had a corner on talk radio, was because was the far right radio station owners wouldn't put a liberal on the air.

So, Air America is founded, and they have their all star lineup of liberals on radio stations across the country (around 100 or more in all the top markets) and it fails miserably and they go bankrupt.

So, since they weren't able to compete in the market, even heavily subsidized by fund raising and capital infusions by liberals, they want to shut down the conservative talk show hosts that actually have an audience that wants to listen to them.

Left-wing radio failed, as their was simply too much competition from "mainstream" news.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Left-wing radio failed, as their was simply too much competition from "mainstream" news.
Talk/hate radio appeals to people who have anger issues and think of themselves as some sort of freedom warriors, a moniker that by definition assumes an oppositional stance on government. Since conservatives by nature are anti-government, it's much easier to engage an audience already predisposed towards anti-government rhetoric and when you mix in the Limbaugh's, Becks, Palin's etc....well it attracts an audience.

I find this stuff amusing or entertaining, but it's really insanely stupid and I can't see listening to this junk on a daily basis like some people do. It reminds me of the Jerry Springer type crap on daytime TV. I'd rather spend the time on something productive.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LA is only one of two I put on ingore -- he is unable of thinking outside right and left terms.

ROFL!

Funny statement coming from a guy who is clearly a shill for the GOP.

[Bob]

Talk/hate radio appeals to people who have anger issues and think of themselves as some sort of freedom warriors, a moniker that by definition assumes an oppositional stance on government. Since conservatives by nature are anti-government, it's much easier to engage an audience already predisposed towards anti-government rhetoric and when you mix in the Limbaugh's, Becks, Palin's etc....well it attracts an audience.

I find this stuff amusing or entertaining, but it's really insanely stupid and I can't see listening to this junk on a daily basis like some people do. It reminds me of the Jerry Springer type crap on daytime TV. I'd rather spend the time on something productive.

I think you are on the cutting edge again, of what the argument will be to shut them down, not because what they (right wing radio) are saying any thing more "hateful" than those on the left, but as it can be an effective tool to scare some into submission. Like the race card that sometimes is used, when no rascism is evident, just the thought of being labled, will have the effect of getting others with simular views to be less outspoken. (It has been used in many times in many countries and times.) At least that is the thought, but at this point, the opposite effect is taking root. People like me, "see" what attempts are being made to misrepresent them as some fancy drug reps or idiots without a valid grievance, or being a "rightard." The "hate speech" approach will be one thing that used (along with localism, and unfair ownership percentages to shut down opposing views.

Personally in most cases hate speech would be more accurately labled hurt speech, because it pains the other guy to hear a position they disagree with.

The end game is the same, and again what should be of concern to you is the trend up the ladder of control vs Liberty within the exec branch of government. Any worries that a Romney or a Palin would inherit powers grabed under Bush and now Obama to grab even more, and to what end? The three headed eagle that represents three branches of government again used self-interest to keep respective powers in check -- it is my opinion, that the executive branch has taken, and is attempting to take powers never intended for it, which (if it does not lead to a king in name) leads to the same types of problems, and abuses of power.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/stupid-birthers.jpg

[Spider]

Left-wing radio failed, as their was simply too much competition from "mainstream" news.

Some of Left wing radio failed , Ed Schultz , Maddow etc , still going strong , reason why Air America failed is , they didnt get Radio people to run it , their lead star was a comedian , It wasnt cause there wasnt a market , Just piss poor management

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Rescue Me! (http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2009/08/21/rescue-me/)

<!-- Print the time the article was posted --> By Peregrin
<!-- The article content --> http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/hello-bill.jpg

[footstepsfrom#27]

Personally in most cases hate speech would be more accurately labled hurt speech, because it pains the other guy to hear a position they disagree with.
It's not disagreement of opinion I object to. Disagreement is healthy and productive. It's the utterly reckless and obnoxious way that opiinion is presented without any reguard for civility or responsibility. In that reguard, it mirrors this forum. The difference is here you can join in discussions you consider worthy and ignore those you don't, which you can do with individual posters as well. There is no such ability on the radio. Second, on the internet there is no expectation of accuracy or credibility on the part of posters. Most people know that much of what appears in text on these discussion boards is pure BS. However in talk radio like other media, some people ascribe credibility to someone who they recognize as a public spokesperson for a point of view.

What annoys me along with the manner of delivery, is the rampant abuse of the truth. I'm not talking about foundational philosophy here. I'm talking about bare facts. A good example is the way the Sotomayor hearings were represented. Because I spent hours pouring over the Supreme Court case people were discussing and associated legal opinions relied upon by the appeals court as well, I knew the case backwards and forwards. I confronted people in here about their disinformation but I never had any expectations that others were going to read the 93 page SC decision and do their due dilligence in order to partipate on another level in that debate, because that's just not how the interent works 99% of the time. But listening to the radio heads is entirely different. People hold out some kind of assumed credibility for accuracy and truth for these guys because they tend to believe that since they're on the public airwaves, they must be smarter or better informed than the rest of us. That opinion is unjustified by reality but it remains rooted in some people's heads. But as the Sotomayor hearings demonstrated, the mainstream media as well as the right wing radio hosts all demonstrated that none of them had any real idea what that court case was about. I heard blatant falsehoods expressed as truth over and over again, and lapped up eagerly by the groupies who were completely unaware they were being led down the garden path. I saw gross ignorance expressed at every turn by people who obviouslly had no idea what was really happening. Even in the hearings themselves, I witnessed most of the congressional participants seemingly ignorant of the facts, and the majority of these people have a law degree. We've become an incredibly lazy socicety that relies on flash and dash, charisma and personality as our information guides, rather than the truth.

This is just one example of what a typical hour with these people is like. Listen to someone like Michael Savage and tell me that hatred is not what motivates this guy. He's completely off his rocker. He's a total nut case without any objectivity or loyalty to truth or integrity at all. He sounds utterly insane, screaming and yelling and generally proving himself in need of medication. His rhetoric is reminicient of the McCarthy witch hunts in the '50's or the attitude toward MLK in the '60's by southern white racists. In fact I would say he's goes far beyond that.

What I'm saying is not that I want these people off the air, nor do I think that is something the government will or should pursue...obviously not. I'm really just astounded that responsible people in the GOP haven't come out in public to distance from these guys, because frankly I think they are hurting your party more than your realize. The moderate wing of the party has been dragged into a guilt by association trap here. Rush et all, are probably about as credible in the minds of people in the political middle as the Jerry Fallwell contingent that helped alienate a lot of these same people 20 years ago. They're branding the GOP as the party of nuts among those who might be attracted to some of the principles the party says it stands for if it were not for the wingnuts.

[watermock]

Don't worry, "O" will grease the wheels for the blue dogs, who need fed.

Everyone will calm down after labor day.

Then Congress will "go to work" on what's left of America's workforce, and close banks destimed for the fed banks.

There will only be 5 banks soon.

[Rohirrim]

It's not disagreement of opinion I object to. Disagreement is healthy and productive. It's the utterly reckless and obnoxious way that opiinion is presented without any reguard for civility or responsibility. In that reguard, it mirrors this forum. The difference is here you can join in discussions you consider worthy and ignore those you don't, which you can do with individual posters as well. There is no such ability on the radio. Second, on the internet there is no expectation of accuracy or credibility on the part of posters. Most people know that much of what appears in text on these discussion boards is pure BS. However in talk radio like other media, some people ascribe credibility to someone who they recognize as a public spokesperson for a point of view.

What annoys me along with the manner of delivery, is the rampant abuse of the truth. I'm not talking about foundational philosophy here. I'm talking about bare facts. A good example is the way the Sotomayor hearings were represented. Because I spent hours pouring over the Supreme Court case people were discussing and associated legal opinions relied upon by the appeals court as well, I knew the case backwards and forwards. I confronted people in here about their disinformation but I never had any expectations that others were going to read the 93 page SC decision and do their due dilligence in order to partipate on another level in that debate, because that's just not how the interent works 99% of the time. But listening to the radio heads is entirely different. People hold out some kind of assumed credibility for accuracy and truth for these guys because they tend to believe that since they're on the public airwaves, they must be smarter or better informed than the rest of us. That opinion is unjustified by reality but it remains rooted in some people's heads. But as the Sotomayor hearings demonstrated, the mainstream media as well as the right wing radio hosts all demonstrated that none of them had any real idea what that court case was about. I heard blatant falsehoods expressed as truth over and over again, and lapped up eagerly by the groupies who were completely unaware they were being led down the garden path. I saw gross ignorance expressed at every turn by people who obviouslly had no idea what was really happening. Even in the hearings themselves, I witnessed most of the congressional participants seemingly ignorant of the facts, and the majority of these people have a law degree. We've become an incredibly lazy socicety that relies on flash and dash, charisma and personality as our information guides, rather than the truth.

This is just one example of what a typical hour with these people is like. Listen to someone like Michael Savage and tell me that hatred is not what motivates this guy. He's completely off his rocker. He's a total nut case without any objectivity or loyalty to truth or integrity at all. He sounds utterly insane, screaming and yelling and generally proving himself in need of medication. His rhetoric is reminicient of the McCarthy witch hunts in the '50's or the attitude toward MLK in the '60's by southern white racists. In fact I would say he's goes far beyond that.

What I'm saying is not that I want these people off the air, nor do I think that is something the government will or should pursue...obviously not. I'm really just astounded that responsible people in the GOP haven't come out in public to distance from these guys, because frankly I think they are hurting your party more than your realize. The moderate wing of the party has been dragged into a guilt by association trap here. Rush et all, are probably about as credible in the minds of people in the political middle as the Jerry Fallwell contingent that helped alienate a lot of these same people 20 years ago. They're branding the GOP as the party of nuts among those who might be attracted to some of the principles the party says it stands for if it were not for the wingnuts.

I wish you'd stop warning them. Their association with the assorted rightard nutjobs of America is what is going to incinerate the Republican Party. I'd like to warm my hands on the flame. ;D

[tnedator]

What annoys me along with the manner of delivery, is the rampant abuse of the truth. I'm not talking about foundational philosophy here. I'm talking about bare facts.

I don't disagree with you about this one bit. I think they often play fast and loose with the truth and facts.

Where I will disagree with you, is that this isn't just a talk radio or Foxnews problem.

If you watch any CNN, MSNBC or network news broadcast, and you will see it. If you see Pelosi or read interviewed, you will see it.

If you watch virtually any of the Presidential news conferences when he is trying to sell one of his agenda items, he often at 'best' mistates the facts and at times outright lies. Some examples.

Claiming a surgeon gets $50,000 for amputating a foot (he says, the surgeon has this 50k immediately reimbursed), hence a patients doctors are motivated to amputate rather than teach the patient how to get the diabetes under control. In reality the surgeon gets $500-1000.

He claims that doctors remove tonsils, when a kid has a sore throat or allergies that could be cured with a pill, because they make more money doing the surgery. One, there is no proof of this. Two, while at one time tonsil removal was considered one of the most over-performed surgery, that isn't the case anymore, as studies have shown that there can be long term complication from removing them (at one time it was thought they were uneeded and people would have less sore throats and infections is they were removed)

He claims that with a public option, if you your insurance, you can keep it. This is a lie, based on the current house plan. If it is not a government approved plan, then you will be able to keep it only until the policy changes in any way, which can be a rate change, deductible change, adding a person, etc. This is a mistatement of the truth, or he doesn't know what's in the house bill.

He discounts anyone that feels the house plan isn't good for America and how voices concern about it. He says they are just caught up in the food fight that cable news is creating (he has began using cable or cable news instead of Foxnews when he is attacking them).

Do you honestly believe on talk radio and foxnews plays fast and loose with the truth and facts?

[Bob]

[QUOTE=mhgaffney;2515757]You think NPR is left?
QUOTE]

Well, they sure aint mainstream....

How far have you moved the line, so everything looks right of center? I honestly like most NPR non political stuff, but they for the most part pretty far left.

[Bob]

Some of Left wing radio failed , Ed Schultz , Maddow etc , still going strong , reason why Air America failed is , they didnt get Radio people to run it , their lead star was a comedian , It wasnt cause there wasnt a market , Just piss poor management

Could be, I think that if a person is "entertaining" they can draw in a bigger tent. And maybe the "left" radio you talk of has stuff on there not addressed in other TV formats?, on this one I dont claim to have first hand experience listening to it, so will shutup.

[Bob]

It's not disagreement of opinion I object to. Disagreement is healthy and productive. It's the utterly reckless and obnoxious way that opiinion is presented without any reguard for civility or responsibility. In that reguard, it mirrors this forum. The difference is here you can join in discussions you consider worthy and ignore those you don't, which you can do with individual posters as well. There is no such ability on the radio. Second, on the internet there is no expectation of accuracy or credibility on the part of posters. Most people know that much of what appears in text on these discussion boards is pure BS. However in talk radio like other media, some people ascribe credibility to someone who they recognize as a public spokesperson for a point of view.

What annoys me along with the manner of delivery, is the rampant abuse of the truth. I'm not talking about foundational philosophy here. I'm talking about bare facts. A good example is the way the Sotomayor hearings were represented. Because I spent hours pouring over the Supreme Court case people were discussing and associated legal opinions relied upon by the appeals court as well, I knew the case backwards and forwards. I confronted people in here about their disinformation but I never had any expectations that others were going to read the 93 page SC decision and do their due dilligence in order to partipate on another level in that debate, because that's just not how the interent works 99% of the time. But listening to the radio heads is entirely different. People hold out some kind of assumed credibility for accuracy and truth for these guys because they tend to believe that since they're on the public airwaves, they must be smarter or better informed than the rest of us. That opinion is unjustified by reality but it remains rooted in some people's heads. But as the Sotomayor hearings demonstrated, the mainstream media as well as the right wing radio hosts all demonstrated that none of them had any real idea what that court case was about. I heard blatant falsehoods expressed as truth over and over again, and lapped up eagerly by the groupies who were completely unaware they were being led down the garden path. I saw gross ignorance expressed at every turn by people who obviouslly had no idea what was really happening. Even in the hearings themselves, I witnessed most of the congressional participants seemingly ignorant of the facts, and the majority of these people have a law degree. We've become an incredibly lazy socicety that relies on flash and dash, charisma and personality as our information guides, rather than the truth.

This is just one example of what a typical hour with these people is like. Listen to someone like Michael Savage and tell me that hatred is not what motivates this guy. He's completely off his rocker. He's a total nut case without any objectivity or loyalty to truth or integrity at all. He sounds utterly insane, screaming and yelling and generally proving himself in need of medication. His rhetoric is reminicient of the McCarthy witch hunts in the '50's or the attitude toward MLK in the '60's by southern white racists. In fact I would say he's goes far beyond that.

What I'm saying is not that I want these people off the air, nor do I think that is something the government will or should pursue...obviously not. I'm really just astounded that responsible people in the GOP haven't come out in public to distance from these guys, because frankly I think they are hurting your party more than your realize. The moderate wing of the party has been dragged into a guilt by association trap here. Rush et all, are probably about as credible in the minds of people in the political middle as the Jerry Fallwell contingent that helped alienate a lot of these same people 20 years ago. They're branding the GOP as the party of nuts among those who might be attracted to some of the principles the party says it stands for if it were not for the wingnuts.

RE: Savage, I find that I get pissed when I listen to him, and I get worked up enough now days without adding to it. I think he's bright, but his anger has taken over, and his ego makes it hard for me to listen to him anymore.

To be completly honest, I think in America (right now at least) we are experiencing the exact opposite fears that were expressed in 1984 and other distopia novels -- that spoke about restriction to information -- now we are flooded with everything via TV, radio and Internet, and every means is used to package this "information" in credible ways, so one who is inlcined to think one way, can pile crap onto his or her own ideological inclinations.

Although I repect your thoughtfulness, I think America at its root is good and (I would say holy) at its very foundation. Once you stated the percentage of bad to good in American history was 90% bad, vs 10% good (or something like that.) So, if I think America is headed the wrong way (and has been for 100 years) in terms of Liberties, and growing government control then it would only make sense that I search for information about those roots. I do not find that in Savage or Hennady anymore, or most of the mainstream media -- Jennings, was someone I repected though. But I do see that same searching with Glenn Beck. But, more than radio I have been reading the actual words of the Founding Fathers, and like what they said, and how they saught to protect personal Liberties from over-reaching government. But let me clarify one major point -- their views were tainted by the racism that exsisted during that time -- that's not to say everything they said was of no value, but it is sad they could could not all reach past it. (Although some were abolitionists.) I dont want to look to International law for freedom -- governement is bad enough when it is headed in DC, the further removed government is, the less accountable it will be to the masses -- and to me. I am glad you believe in free speech, but I honesly think that this admin if they could, would not want it around -- and judging by who they put as the Czar dealing with the FCC, I think I have just reason to be concerned.

[Spider]

Could be, I think that if a person is "entertaining" they can draw in a bigger tent. And maybe the "left" radio you talk of has stuff on there not addressed in other TV formats?, on this one I dont claim to have first hand experience listening to it, so will shutup.

At first , but you got to have substance........

[Bob]

I don't disagree with you about this one bit. I think they often play fast and loose with the truth and facts.

Where I will disagree with you, is that this isn't just a talk radio or Foxnews problem.

If you watch any CNN, MSNBC or network news broadcast, and you will see it. If you see Pelosi or read interviewed, you will see it.

If you watch virtually any of the Presidential news conferences when he is trying to sell one of his agenda items, he often at 'best' mistates the facts and at times outright lies. Some examples.

Claiming a surgeon gets $50,000 for amputating a foot (he says, the surgeon has this 50k immediately reimbursed), hence a patients doctors are motivated to amputate rather than teach the patient how to get the diabetes under control. In reality the surgeon gets $500-1000.

He claims that doctors remove tonsils, when a kid has a sore throat or allergies that could be cured with a pill, because they make more money doing the surgery. One, there is no proof of this. Two, while at one time tonsil removal was considered one of the most over-performed surgery, that isn't the case anymore, as studies have shown that there can be long term complication from removing them (at one time it was thought they were uneeded and people would have less sore throats and infections is they were removed)

He claims that with a public option, if you your insurance, you can keep it. This is a lie, based on the current house plan. If it is not a government approved plan, then you will be able to keep it only until the policy changes in any way, which can be a rate change, deductible change, adding a person, etc. This is a mistatement of the truth, or he doesn't know what's in the house bill.

He discounts anyone that feels the house plan isn't good for America and how voices concern about it. He says they are just caught up in the food fight that cable news is creating (he has began using cable or cable news instead of Foxnews when he is attacking them).

Do you honestly believe on talk radio and foxnews plays fast and loose with the truth and facts?

Great post, and how many called out the pres on these misrepresentations? Might be why viewership is tanking on MSNBC and teh like -- as they are only willing to call out 1/2 of the political spectrum, while the people need to be able to trust them, for this whole damn system to work.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Although I repect your thoughtfulness, I think America at its root is good and (I would say holy) at its very foundation. Once you stated the percentage of bad to good in American history was 90% bad, vs 10% good (or something like that.)
I believe you're referring to the point I made with reference to the chronological time line of our history so far as it relates to the primary purpose of the founding of the Republic; that being freedom, liberty and equality for all...ie; that found in the words, "all men are created equal".

I made mention of the fact that 90% of our history we actively resisted accepting the truth of those words. That's somewhat different than quantifying every aspect of the nation's history as good vs. evil. clearly that's not even something that's possible. How does one (for example) balance the good we did in helping to liberate Europe (twice) with the negatives of Vietnam or our corporate colonialism in Africa? Such a task might be left for historians but it's probably beyond most of us. A strict linear history on the issue of slavery, civil rights and our responsiveness to the greater racial integration question is far easier to account for.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wish you'd stop warning them. Their association with the assorted rightard nutjobs of America is what is going to incinerate the Republican Party. I'd like to warm my hands on the flame. ;D

+1 :~ohyah!:

[Bob]

Did LA say something? Was Bush mentioned again???

[Bob]

Is free speech ok for the left, but ok to ban on the right? What if you guys get a right of center pres 4 years from now who has inherited massive unconsititional powers?

[alkemical]

Is free speech ok for the left, but ok to ban on the right? What if you guys get a right of center pres 4 years from now who has inherited massive unconsititional powers?

I've been on that train for years, but nobody cares and nobody listens - and they have dogma filled into their heads that allows them to accept newspeak ideals.

[SPfloppy]

Again we find ourselves discussing this. Sigh...Getting back to what was posted already, it is about money. Conservative talk radio is a cash cow with 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 tits to milk with. You can't call content from an entertainment source a monopoly and try to enact legislation against it so long as they so much as say one negative thing about thier "own" side. Rush called out Bush plenty during the lasy 8 years. Does that make him balanced? hell no, but it is a leg to stand on in any would be court battle. The market is open to all sorts of content and new fads catch fire for good reasons and sometimes no reasons. So a left leaning radio show could catch on next week because of a new segment or gimick and compete against Rush, Hannity and Beck. So I don't see how any of this is un-fair and requires any legistlation to force content on an audience that has voted with thier radio dials as to what they want to listen to.

[Rohirrim]

Is free speech ok for the left, but ok to ban on the right? What if you guys get a right of center pres 4 years from now who has inherited massive unconsititional powers?

Somebody is banning rightard talk radio? Where? When? The last I heard of government banning TV programming was when Nixon pressured CBS to cancel the Smothers Brothers.

[Bob]

Somebody is banning rightard talk radio? Where? When? The last I heard of government banning TV programming was when Nixon pressured CBS to cancel the Smothers Brothers.

First off you would be happy if it was -- correct? just because you have the foresight of a block of wood and have no idea what is coming next -- -- dont fault me for it, maybe you need to start listening to some additional sources of news that are not state run.

But yes, the intent expressed by the Czar over the FCC, who wrote about "forget about the fairness Doctrine" not that he didnt want to get right wing radio off the air, but that it was not the right approach.

[rastaman]

First off you would be happy if it was -- correct? just because you have the foresight of a block of wood and have no idea what is coming next -- -- dont fault me for it, maybe you need to start listening to some additional sources of news that are not state run.

But yes, the intent expressed by the Czar over the FCC, who wrote about "forget about the fairness Doctrine" not that he didnt want to get right wing radio off the air, but that it was not the right approach.

No one is calling for the return of the "Fairnes Doctrine" from 1949-1987. However, there is a call for a return to "Fairness" for a 21st Century model.

First we are talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And by signing on to the the licensing agreement to use the Air Waves they agreed to one obligation and that is to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Truth be told, station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk. Thats not why conservative talk were given their license in the first place.

As we speak, you have three companies controlling the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations.

To avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

[Dukes]

No one is calling for the return of the "Fairnes Doctrine" from 1949-1987. However, there is a call for a return to "Fairness" for a 21st Century model.

First we are talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And by signing on to the the licensing agreement to use the Air Waves they agreed to one obligation and that is to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Truth be told, station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk. Thats not why conservative talk were given their license in the first place.

As we speak, you have three companies controlling the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations.

To avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

They don't offer only conservative talk radio smart guy. They offer a show that gets ratings, which gets sponsors, which keep them in business. I know you'll never understand this, but they don't have an agenda. They are in business to make money, not promote a political ideology.

[Bronx33]

They don't offer only conservative talk radio smart guy. They offer a show that gets ratings, which gets sponsors, which keep them in business. I know you'll never understand this, but they don't have an agenda. They are in business to make money, not promote a political ideology.

Your missing the point! Rastaman is here too promote a political ideology though! only with not all the facts.

[rastaman]

Your missing the point! Rastaman is here too promote a political ideology though! only with not all the facts.

Bronco, I'm advocating for a return to "Fairness" for a 21st Century model of the broadcast air waves.

Remember, broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And by signing on to the the licensing agreement to use the Air Waves they agreed to one obligation and that is to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Truth be told, station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk. Thats not why conservative talk were given their license in the first place.

Once again, as we speak, you have three companies controlling the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations.

To avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

So how is it that in your mind you come to believe that Rastaman is here too promote a political ideology though! only with not all the facts! It would seem that you are the one w/o all the facts.

It would appear to me that you are an ardent supporters of monopolies on the air wave b/c of the money and revenue they generate. Not whether or the radio networks operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

[Dukes]

Bronco, I'm advocating for a return to "Fairness" for a 21st Century model of the broadcast air waves.

Remember, broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And by signing on to the the licensing agreement to use the Air Waves they agreed to one obligation and that is to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Truth be told, station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk. Thats not why conservative talk were given their license in the first place.

Once again, as we speak, you have three companies controlling the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations.

To avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

So how is it that in your mind you come to believe that Rastaman is here too promote a political ideology though! only with not all the facts! It would seem that you are the one w/o all the facts.

It would appear to me that you are an ardent supporters of monopolies on the air wave b/c of the money and revenue they generate. Not whether or the radio networks operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

So you're in favor of a simular type of fairness being applied to newspapers and television?

[rastaman]

They don't offer only conservative talk radio smart guy. They offer a show that gets ratings, which gets sponsors, which keep them in business. I know you'll never understand this, but they don't have an agenda. They are in business to make money, not promote a political ideology.

No one is arguing about whether or not theres only conservative talk radio. What is being argued in terms of "Fairness" is that the conservative talk radio monopolies are not living up to their agreement with the FCC when using the PUBLIC AIR WAVES. By using the public air waves conservative talk licensing agreement agreed to one obligation and that was to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

[rastaman]

So you're in favor of a simular type of fairness being applied to newspapers and television?

I don't know. Radio air waves and cable news are not the same.

[Bronx33]

Bronco, I'm advocating for a return to "Fairness" for a 21st Century model of the broadcast air waves.

Remember, broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And by signing on to the the licensing agreement to use the Air Waves they agreed to one obligation and that is to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Truth be told, station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk. Thats not why conservative talk were given their license in the first place.

Once again, as we speak, you have three companies controlling the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations.

To avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

So how is it that in your mind you come to believe that Rastaman is here too promote a political ideology though! only with not all the facts! It would seem that you are the one w/o all the facts.

It would appear to me that you are an ardent supporters of monopolies on the air wave b/c of the money and revenue they generate. Not whether or the radio networks operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.


Now just bring some marketable progressive AM radio jocks that can compete and change the law and your set.

also: http://www.fcc.gov/fees/

[rastaman]

Now just bring some marketable progressive AM radio jocks that can compete and change the law and your set.

also: http://www.fcc.gov/fees/

So what are you trying to say?

[Bronx33]

So what are you trying to say? It's not free as you copy and pasted.




A: Each year, as part of the passage of the federal budget, Congress establishes an amount that the FCC must collect in regulatory fees. This year that amount is $269 million - 99% of the Commission's annual budget. Based upon 47 U.S.C. §159, the FCC is obligated to collect this amount from every organization that benefits in any way from the FCC's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.

The regulatory fee section of the law does not specifically exempt any group from paying this fee; although, it does allow the Commission to waive, reduce, or defer payment of a fee "for good cause shown, where such action would promote the public interest." The FCC has interpreted this to mean that regulatory fees will not be applied to state and local governments, amateur radio operator licensees (other than amateur vanity call signs), and non-profit organizations. The FCC also allows companies in precarious financial situations or bankruptcy to petition for a case-by-case decision on a waiver or reduction of the regulatory fee.

[rastaman]

It's not free as you copy and pasted.




A: Each year, as part of the passage of the federal budget, Congress establishes an amount that the FCC must collect in regulatory fees. This year that amount is $269 million - 99% of the Commission's annual budget. Based upon 47 U.S.C. §159, the FCC is obligated to collect this amount from every organization that benefits in any way from the FCC's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.

The regulatory fee section of the law does not specifically exempt any group from paying this fee; although, it does allow the Commission to waive, reduce, or defer payment of a fee "for good cause shown, where such action would promote the public interest." The FCC has interpreted this to mean that regulatory fees will not be applied to state and local governments, amateur radio operator licensees (other than amateur vanity call signs), and non-profit organizations. The FCC also allows companies in precarious financial situations or bankruptcy to petition for a case-by-case decision on a waiver or reduction of the regulatory fee.

Nice cut n paste Bronx33.

None the less, our public airwaves belong to the American people no matter which corporation owns the broadcasting rights, and we need to make certain we are putting them to good use in the best interests of the people.

[Bob]

No one is calling for the return of the "Fairnes Doctrine" from 1949-1987. However, there is a call for a return to "Fairness" for a 21st Century model.

First we are talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And by signing on to the the licensing agreement to use the Air Waves they agreed to one obligation and that is to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Truth be told, station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk. Thats not why conservative talk were given their license in the first place.

As we speak, you have three companies controlling the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations.

To avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

Public interest my ass...

There are more folks in America who see themselves as conservative, than do those who identify themselves as progressives or liberal -- yet conservatives have Fox (which still has alternative views expressed on it) and that is what news was like some 30 - years ago -- when they were actually intellectually curious about both parties -- and not needing a future bailout from the government to keep them in business (because fewer and fewer folks trust them) ...look at MSNBC ratings trends and tell me I'm off base. People are tired of not getting both sides on mainstream -- propaganda is fine after the state completly owns them, but for now, they depend on viewers.

Various attempts at forcing liberal ideas where there is little demand for it is nothing less than shutting off more access for conservatives...next up -- the Internet -- but dont worry Obama only wants it in an emergency -- yeah, like that wont happen...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Did LA say something? Was Bush mentioned again???

No, but thanks for the reminder. :welcome:

Mention Bush = destroy GOP. :thumbsup:

[Bob]

Nice cut n paste Bronx33.

None the less, our public airwaves belong to the American people no matter which corporation owns the broadcasting rights, and we need to make certain we are putting them to good use in the best interests of the people.

The FCC Czar appointed by this admin stated that we should forget about the fairness Doctrine (in the way you are describing it) his stated approach is to tax stations without the right type of minority ownership and views presented -- taxes equal to 100% anual budgets anually -- just to be fair of course...

I sure you have not seen this little dictator's 2008 speech when he talked in glowing terms about Chevez revolution and those evil land owners and capitalists who attempted to thwart him ... I mean on mainstream news they woudl never inform their listenership -- but it's on youtube still...

Did LA say something? Too bad no one is listening to that freaking puppet...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There are more folks in America who see themslves as conservative, tahn do those who idepentify themselves as proressives or liberal...


...and yet you got your asses handed to you in a landslide this last election, lost control of the WH, and lost both chambers of Congress when just two years earlier you controlled all three. :D

(But I suppose the liberals are somehow to blame for that too, eh?)

[Bob]

No one is arguing about whether or not theres only conservative talk radio. What is being argued in terms of "Fairness" is that the conservative talk radio monopolies are not living up to their agreement with the FCC when using the PUBLIC AIR WAVES. By using the public air waves conservative talk licensing agreement agreed to one obligation and that was to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

If they get religated to Satalite, eventually it will deemed hate speech, and shut down anyway. I am also certain that Christain radio has to be yanked -- for the same reason... and "in God we Trust" taken off of money... but first step...silence those that speak out.

[Rohirrim]

First off you would be happy if it was -- correct? just because you have the foresight of a block of wood and have no idea what is coming next -- -- dont fault me for it, maybe you need to start listening to some additional sources of news that are not state run.

But yes, the intent expressed by the Czar over the FCC, who wrote about "forget about the fairness Doctrine" not that he didnt want to get right wing radio off the air, but that it was not the right approach.

You really are a moron, aren't you? And a paranoid one at that.

[Bronx33]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/megaphone_envy_and_the_fairnes.html

[Bronx33]

The FCC Czar appointed by this admin stated that we should forget about the fairness Doctrine (in the way you are describing it) his stated approach is to tax stations without the right type of minority ownership and views presented -- taxes equal to 100% anual budgets anually -- just to be fair of course...

I sure you have not seen this little dictator's 2008 speech when he talked in glowing terms about Chevez revolution and those evil land owners and capitalists who attempted to thwart him ... I mean on mainstream news they woudl never inform their listenership -- but it's on youtube still...

Did LA say something? Too bad no one is listening to that freaking puppet...


Ya i head about it and how they simply eliminated the radio opposition.

[footstepsfrom#27]

It's not free as you copy and pasted.

A: Each year, as part of the passage of the federal budget, Congress establishes an amount that the FCC must collect in regulatory fees. This year that amount is $269 million - 99% of the Commission's annual budget.
It's not free, but it's close: http://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html

Click on "Who owes fees and what is my fee?" The Excel chart shows the highest fee in 2009 any radio station has to pay for a license is $10,850 to serve a market greater than 3 million people...less than $30 a day.

[Bob]

You really are a moron, aren't you? And a paranoid one at that.

I am assuming you have not read any portions of his writings dealing with this very topic -- have you? I have heard him speak -- I am only stating those things he has said he wants to do. Do you think I am only dependant on state run TV for information? There is something called the Internet -- and they can post these thingies on it called 'video" -- right on webpages -- you should try it sometime.

Is he a liar? What words should we believe that he said -- those he said last year before his appointment, or those he released in public statements last week? Its no different then what teh left thinks about no one knowing that Obama wants one option in healthcare -- teh public option -- as he stated as much on three ocassions that I have heard/seen (those video thingies again.) I know you think you are smarter -- but just stating a lie over and over doesnt change the facts. I wonder who it was would said that anyway? An ideological counterpart?

He is working to shut down right wing radio -- that is his primary goal ... his words, and his actions thus far reveal that truth.

[Rohirrim]

I am assuming you have not read any portions of his writings dealing with this very topic -- have you? I have heard him speak -- I am only stating those things he has said he wants to do. Do you think I am only dependant on state run TV for information? There is something called the Internet -- and they can post these thingies on it called 'video" -- right on webpages -- you should try it sometime.

Is he a liar? What words should we believe that he said -- those he said last year before his appointment, or those he released in public statements last week? Its no different then what teh left thinks about no one knowing that Obama wants one option in healthcare -- teh public option -- as he stated as much on three ocassions that I have heard/seen (those video thingies again.) I know you think you are smarter -- but just stating a lie over and over doesnt change the facts. I wonder who it was would said that anyway? An ideological counterpart?

He is working to shut down right wing radio -- that is his primary goal ... his words, and his actions thus far reveal that truth.

You need to see a doctor. Get some counseling. Hopefully, you have insurance.

[Bob]

It's not free, but it's close: http://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html

Click on "Who owes fees and what is my fee?" The Excel chart shows the highest fee in 2009 any radio station has to pay for a license is $10,850 to serve a market greater than 3 million people...less than $30 a day.

And proposed fines to those who dont meet the new standards of minority ownership will make the numbers above irrelivant.

[Bob]

You need to see a doctor. Get some counseling. Hopefully, you have insurance.

Deflection. You dont take time to listen to the FCC Czar talk in glowing terms about Chavez -- do I have to do all of your homework? I guess you are used to that huh, while working on your Bachlors on Political Science from Greeley?

Oh, and yes I have excellent insurance, and like most Americans dont want teh government to take it from me, and give both of us crappy insurance for twice the price...I know, so astro-turf of me...