GOP preps for talk radio confrontation

[Care4all]

Care, libs can put the opposing point of view out there. Nobody is preventing them from putting on their own shows.

Libs have NPR and Dead Air America - remember?

NOT with the same bandwidth reach rsr, bandwidth is limited, only a few stations in each area are licenced to reach the "greater area" and the "greater Public". This does not have to do with specifically "Talk radio" this has to do with all of Radio and all of Broadcast Tv only, in which the PUBLIC owns the airwaves and issues a LIMITED number of licences with a limited amount of bandwidth, given to the most, while very few businesses, gets the big kahuna, the airwaves that reach the most citizens....

The Fairness Doctrine does not FORCE any of these Stations to put a Liberal talk show host on....? I have no idea where you have gotten such a ridiculous thing from? The Law only requires that the Radio Station gives the Public both sides of issues with Public Interest...BECAUSE bandwidth is limited and only a few have the power to reach the entire region....

This is only required IF the Station IS NOT already balanced in covering their NEWS STORIES....and haven't let the Public know about the opposing views on the Public Issue of Interest.

The PUBLIC OWNS the Airwaves and the Public has the right to request these stations to inform them thoroughly.

This is not cutting off free speech, this is guaranteeing it, to all.

It's a good thing, imo.

Care

 

[Annie]

Wel, I disagree with your assessment of this and I agree with the Supreme Court's sentiments...

The Fairness doctrine does not limit free speech, you are LIMITING it now.

The fairness Doctirne supports the First Amendment, without it, the public does not get both views of public issues,

so Kathi, it is you that supports limiting speech, on our limited airwave space.

and this has nothing to do with "talk radio"!

that is pure bs on Rush's part, hype to get you all on your side in a huffy, it's an outright lie.

Sorry you can't see that Kathi.

Care

Well I don't agree with you or your interpretation of what the Supreme Court said. Not too surprising considering what you wrote about Rush influencing me, after what I've written. Never mind.

 

[MtnBiker]

All moot anyways:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA1OTkxY2FlNGVkMTU0Yzc3NjNjOTU3YmQyZWQ5NWQ=

309 to 115 yeah!!

 

[Care4all]

Well I don't agree with you or your interpretation of what the Supreme Court said. Not too surprising considering what you wrote about Rush influencing me, after what I've written. Never mind.

I'm sorry Kathianne, I didn't mean to imply you, though I see how you got that... I was in this posting mode with Rsr on the subject before your post and ................my fingers just typed it! I swear!!!

Care

 

[hjmick]

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced at the beginning of anti-Communist hysteria in 1949, a time when almost everyone got their news and information from radio. It remained a matter of general policy, applied on a case by case basis until 1967 when certain provisions of the Doctrine were adopted as a rule by the FCC. In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine citing a senate report that said that radio stations could be regulated this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum. Okay, so far so good. I get this, at this point I even agree. 1949-1969, technology sucks, our sources of information are limited. Got it.

In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale did not apply in the face of expanding communications technologies and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate. The court's majority decision pointed to concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech" and said the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote. The FCC said, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... (and) actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists", and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.

Okay, that works for me, more sources, less need for the Doctrine.

Now, with the rise of conservative radio talk shows (which I personally do not listen to, save from Larry Elder on occasion) and the apparent failure of liberal talk radio, some politicians want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Why? Because they think the American people are as rats to the pied pipers of conservative talk radio? We are unable to think for ourselves? They think that it was conservative talk radio that sunk the amnesty bill, both times. This is one of the reasons they are crying foul, bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I didn't call my senators because of something Larry Elder said, hell, he supported the legislation. I called because I felt what they were trying to do was wrong.

Whew! Okay...back on topic...

While I do not see the need for the Fairness Doctrine in today's world, I say okay. Go for it. Bring it back.

But...

Apply it evenly across the board. TV, radio, print, internet, webcast, you name it. I want a voice from both sides on every single newscast, radio show, editorial page, whatever. Katie Couric? Team her up with Joe Scarborough. The Nightly News with Couric and Scarborough, that has a nice ring to it. The editorial pages for the LA Times would double. Keith Olberman? How about Olberman and Coulter Live? Works for me!

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[Care4all]

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced at the beginning of anti-Communist hysteria in 1949, a time when almost everyone got their news and information from radio. It remained a matter of general policy, applied on a case by case basis until 1967 when certain provisions of the Doctrine were adopted as a rule by the FCC. In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine citing a senate report that said that radio stations could be regulated this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum. Okay, so far so good. I get this, at this point I even agree. 1949-1969, technology sucks, our sources of information are limited. Got it.

In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale did not apply in the face of expanding communications technologies and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate. The court's majority decision pointed to concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech" and said the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote. The FCC said, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... (and) actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists", and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.

Okay, that works for me, more sources, less need for the Doctrine.

Now, with the rise of conservative radio talk shows (which I personally do not listen to, save from Larry Elder on occasion) and the apparent failure of liberal talk radio, some politicians want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Why? Because they think the American people are as rats to the pied pipers of conservative talk radio? We are unable to think for ourselves? They think that it was conservative talk radio that sunk the amnesty bill, both times. This is one of the reasons they are crying foul, bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I didn't call my senators because of something Larry Elder said, hell, he supported the legislation. I called because I felt what they were trying to do was wrong.

Whew! Okay...back on topic...

While I do not see the need for the Fairness Doctrine in today's world, I say okay. Go for it. Bring it back.

But...

Apply it evenly across the board. TV, radio, print, internet, webcast, you name it. I want a voice from both sides on every single newscast, radio show, editorial page, whatever. Katie Couric? Team her up with Joe Scarborough. The Nightly News with Couric and Scarborough, that has a nice ring to it. The editorial pages for the LA Times would double. Keith Olberman? How about Olberman and Coulter Live? Works for me!

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

you are STILL not getting it.... the Fairness Doctrine applied to ONLY the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.... cable can do what they want, newspapers can do what they want, satelight can do what they want....they all can be as unbiased and skewed as they wish.

So can radio, they can be a skewed any way they wish. What was required from the Fairness Doctrine, is that on issues of Public Interest, they need to give a blip about the opposing side of the issue so that the entire public is well informed, these stations were GIVEN THEIR BANDWIDTH to broadcast BY the Public.

Bandwidth is LIMITED, not every American can get this BANDWIDTH to broadcast their views on critical public issues because WE the public, gave all the strong bandwidth to just a couple of people.... which can be dangerous to our freedom, if these stations do not cover important public issues in full....and imo, that is ONLY FAIR to the public that owns these LIMITED BANDWIDTH airwaves.

The FCC decision was partisan. The Supreme court ruled the fairness doctrine WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, just that it was not mandated by congress, so Congress then passed the fairness doctrine by majority vote to make it a Law instead of a rule, and it was VETOED by Reagan, then congress voted on it again and passed it with a majority vote under Bush 1, and it was vetoed again.....with not enough votes to override the veto on both.


All I can say is "may the gods of fairness" be upon those of you that don't agree with it and let Liberals own all of Radio with no voice from the opposition EVER being heard by the public....some day! Pay backs are hell they say.....

This is why I am for it, "The Golden Rule", do unto others as you would want them to do unto you....that is what fairness is all about in my book!

Care

 

[Care4all]

Because that's not what they are looking for. It's not 'very limited,' as there is no such thing as 'very limited' free speech:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18681897/site/newsweek/page/0/

it is SIMPLY not true that the fairness doctrine kept talk radio off the radio....as your article claims...

Radio was FILLED WITH "TALK RADIO" during the years of the fairness doctrine.... it DID NOT in anyway prevent stations from having "talk radio"?

 

[Annie]

For those truly interested in free speech and the public's right to know, an interesting read.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no1/cronauer.html

The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem
Adrian Cronauer*

...

In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in the Red Lion decision.(note 53) The Court justified this result by noting that more individuals would like to broadcast their views than there are available frequencies, reaffirming the Court's reasoning in NBC v. United States.(note 54)

In response to this "scarcity" argument, broadcasters stressed that the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine had a subtle but powerful "chilling effect,"(note 55) leading many of them to abandon their coverage of controversial issues in favor of "safe" issues.(note 56) Red Lion noted the broadcasters' arguments, but the Court found the possibility of a chilling effect to be remote.(note 57) Nevertheless, the door was left open for further consideration: "f experience with the administration of those doctrines, indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications."(note 58)

II. The Downfall of the Fairness Doctrine
In 1984, the Supreme Court invited an action which would give it a chance to reverse Red Lion. In FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, the Court said if the Commission were to show the "fairness doctrine [has] `the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing' speech," the Court would be forced to reconsider the doctrine's constitutional basis.(note 59) However, no test case appeared.

In August 1985, the FCC took the bait. The Commission issued a report concluding the doctrine no longer serves the public interest and, instead, chills First Amendment speech.(note 60) The Commission predicted that without the chilling effect of the Fairness Doctrine, it was reasonable to expect an increase in the coverage of controversial issues of public importance.(note 61) In 1987, the FCC formally renounced the Fairness Doctrine.(note 62) Events since then have confirmed the FCC's prediction of more, rather than less, coverage of controversial issues.(note 63) The amount of opinion-oriented programming "exploded" over the ensuing six years and the number of radio talk shows jumped from 400 to more than 900.(note 64) Many observers ascribe this growth directly to the absence of the inhibiting effect of the Fairness Doctrine.

...

Still, considering the long history of the Fairness Doctrine and the determined attempts by some congressmen to resurrect it, it is reasonable to assume we have not seen the last of it.(note 73) Some speculate congressional pressure may prompt the FCC to reinstate the doctrine as a regulatory policy, while others suggest the current initiatives to rebuild our communications infrastructure may provide an opportunity for Fairness Doctrine backers to do surreptitiously what they have so far been unable to do openly.(note 74)

III. The Rationale behind the Rise and Fall of the Fairness Doctrine By contrasting the fifty years with the Fairness Doctrine in effect with the seven years since the FCC abandoned it, one must conclude that the Fairness Doctrine did not, in fact, increase the likelihood of public exposure to varying viewpoints. Rather, the Fairness Doctrine had exactly the opposite effect and, if reinstated, will not only act as an impediment to the public's right to know but will actually accelerate its negative effect on that right.(note 75)

...

 

[Annie]

it is SIMPLY not true that the fairness doctrine kept talk radio off the radio....as your article claims...

Radio was FILLED WITH "TALK RADIO" during the years of the fairness doctrine.... it DID NOT in anyway prevent stations from having "talk radio"?

Few things are simple, but read what I just posted, it's long. I'll make an assumption you really do care.

 

[hjmick]

you are STILL not getting it.... the Fairness Doctrine applied to ONLY the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.... cable can do what they want, newspapers can do what they want, satelight can do what they want....they all can be as unbiased and skewed as they wish.

So can radio, they can be a skewed any way they wish. What was required from the Fairness Doctrine, is that on issues of Public Interest, they need to give a blip about the opposing side of the issue so that the entire public is well informed, these stations that were GIVEN THEIR BANDWIDTH to broadcast BY the Public.

Bandwidth is LIMITED, not every American can get this BANDWIDTH to broadcast their views on critical public issues because WE the public, gave all the strong bandwidth to just a couple of people.... which can be dangerous to our freedom, if these stations do not cover important public issues in full....and imo, that is ONLY FAIR to the public that owns these LIMITED BANDWIDTH airwaves.

The FCC decision was partisan. The Supreme court ruled the fairness doctrine WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, just that it was not mandated by congress, so Congress then passed the fairness doctrine by majority vote to make it a Law instead of a rule, and it was VETOED by Reagan, then congress voted on it again and passed it with a majority vote under Bush 1, and it was vetoed again.....with not enough votes to override the veto on both.


All I can say is "may the gods of fairness" be upon those of you that don't agree with it and let Liberals own all of Radio with no voice from the opposition EVER being heard by the public....some day! Pay backs are hell they say.....

This is why I am for it, "The Golden Rule", do unto others as you would want them to do unto you....that is what fairness is all about in my book!

Care

You're wrong, I get it. I have a complete understanding of the issue.

What you don't get is that when the Fairness Doctrine was put in place, it was 1949. The sources of information were limited to what could be broadcasted at the time. Yes, the airwaves were limited, their number finite. That made the Doctrine a good idea, at the time. In 1949, hell, in 1969, no one could foresee the advent of cable, the internet, satellite radio, or any of the other new technologies we currently have. All the more reason for a Fairness Doctrine that encompasses the all new sources of information.

You want a policy that applies to technologies of yesteryear, 1949. Step into the 21st century, look around. We're not listening to The Battling Bickersons or The Jack Benny Show anymore. The sources of information in today's world are infinite, we are no longer bound by what can be tuned in on a tabletop AM radio.

While Reagan and Bush may have prevented the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, Clinton made it much much easier for corporations to consolidate ownership of broadcast outlets.

In 1993, Clinton signed into law a telecommunications bill that lifted many of the restrictions that prevented the corporate concentration of broadcasting ownership. He wanted it, the Democrats in Congress wanted it. The theory goes that they thought the best way to hold onto Congress at the time was to buddy up to the major corporations that opposed them. Didn't owrk out so well for tham at the time, they lost control in 1994.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The government cant even enforce our borders, or make sure employers dont hire illegals, but now, they are going to stand over the shoulders of every blogger, to have a 2nd blogger give the other side of an opinion, and then every newsroom, for the other side, and then every newspaper, so each article, and each editorial has the other side, and how about magazines like time, and what about websites, and lets not forget tv, every tv program will have forced opinions, to balance out the liberal and conservative positions.

how much will that cost, its not possible. Its government, big brother tactics, hello 1984.

we are supposed to choose what we watch without government interfering.

You're wrong, I get it. I have a complete understanding of the issue.

What you don't get is that when the Fairness Doctrine was put in place, it was 1949[/i]. The sources of information were limited to what could be broadcasted at the time. Yes, the airwaves were limited, their number finite. That made the Doctrine a good idea, at the time. In 1949, hell, in 1969, no one could foresee the advent of cable, the internet, satellite radio, or any of the other new technologies we currently have. All the more reason for a Fairness Doctrine that encompasses the all new sources of information.

You want a policy that applies to technologies of yesteryear, 1949. Step into the 21st century, look around. We're not listeming to The Battling Bickersons or The Jack Benny Show anymore. The sources of information in today's world are infinite, we are no longer bound by what can be tuned in on a tabletop AM radio.

While Reagan and Bush may have prevented the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, Clinton made it much much easier for corporations to consolidate ownership of broadcast outlets.

In 1993, Clinton signed into law a telecommunications bill that lifted many of the restrictions that prevented the corporate concentration of broadcasting ownership. He wanted it, the Democrats in Congress wanted it. The theory goes that they thought the best way to hold onto Congress at the time was to buddy up to the major corporations that opposed them. Didn't owrk out so well for tham at the time, they lost control in 1994.

 

[Care4all]

You're wrong, I get it. I have a complete understanding of the issue.

What you don't get is that when the Fairness Doctrine was put in place, it was 1949. The sources of information were limited to what could be broadcasted at the time. Yes, the airwaves were limited, their number finite. That made the Doctrine a good idea, at the time. In 1949, hell, in 1969, no one could foresee the advent of cable, the internet, satellite radio, or any of the other new technologies we currently have. All the more reason for a Fairness Doctrine that encompasses the all new sources of information.

You want a policy that applies to technologies of yesteryear, 1949. Step into the 21st century, look around. We're not listening to The Battling Bickersons or The Jack Benny Show anymore. The sources of information in today's world are infinite, we are no longer bound by what can be tuned in on a tabletop AM radio.

While Reagan and Bush may have prevented the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, Clinton made it much much easier for corporations to consolidate ownership of broadcast outlets.

In 1993, Clinton signed into law a telecommunications bill that lifted many of the restrictions that prevented the corporate concentration of broadcasting ownership. He wanted it, the Democrats in Congress wanted it. The theory goes that they thought the best way to hold onto Congress at the time was to buddy up to the major corporations that opposed them. Didn't owrk out so well for tham at the time, they lost control in 1994.

I am not trying to be obtuse here hj but I still think you are wrong.

Newspapers, and Cable tv etc are not owned by the public as with broadcast airwaves and most importantly, they are not limited in any way. If a new newspaper business wants to open up to compete with another newspaper, they only need a printing press and the capital to do it.

There is no licencing by the government and a limited number of them, as with broadcast.

Same with cable tv....

With Broadcast Radio and with Broadcast TV the Public owns the airwaves, and they are VERY LIMITED.....limited in the licenses issued and limited in the broadcast bandwidth. Because of this limited air space and bandwidth, if a company lucky enough to become a licencee of this bandwidth that reaches the entire public decides he is going to only promote his agenda and never give the FULL story from both sides on PUBLIC issues of interest, it would not be fair to the public that owns the airwaves, that differs with this licencee's agenda or that wants to know both sides of the Public issue of Interest.

As far as enforcing the Fairness Doctrine on to those other medias, there is no reason to, because competition or opposing views IF they were limited, can always open a new newspaper to do such....or start up a new cable station to do such.... without having to get a limited licence from the government, the Public.

And I also believe that it would be a government OVER REACH, a breech of the First Amendment to force completely private companies, that do not lease airwaves from the Public, to talk about something they don't believe in or whatever, when another avenue is available. Just look at how many cable stations there are compared to how few tv broadcasting stations there are...!!!

I will say that I could be lead to change my mind on this perhaps with good argument...?

The Supreme court said it best, I can't make it any clearer:

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee.

It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.


A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcast-ing Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974).

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal.

In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995).

The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP),

a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

And the entire usa DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT have a choice. I live in one of the northern most states, midway up and I have no choice of nothin'!

We just moved here and are going nuts! No cell package, no cable, no broadband of any kind for the internet, just 50k dial up speeds so I can't stream a thing or view any video off the net, thank God we at least have a Satelite company that can get us some channels on tv! Not even a wireless internet service is available in my town....no reception...

hahaha! on a good note, I have rediscovered the outside and my veggie garden is doing great and my front gardens are looking mighty fine with all the flowers I have planted!

Care

 

[MtnBiker]

Alot of huff and puff over a topic that has no real relevence. Pence Amendment vote 309 to 115, just academic at this point.

 

[JeffWartman]

And the entire usa DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT have a choice. I live in one of the northern most states, midway up and I have no choice of nothin'!

We just moved here and are going nuts! No cell package, no cable, no broadband of any kind for the internet, just 50k dial up speeds so I can't stream a thing or view any video off the net, thank God we at least have a Satelite company that can get us some channels on tv! Not even a wireless internet service is available in my town....no reception...

hahaha! on a good note, I have rediscovered the outside and my veggie garden is doing great and my front gardens are looking mighty fine with all the flowers I have planted!

Care

You do have a choice. You have the choice not to live in the boonies.

 

[hjmick]

Care, I know you're not trying to be obtuse, and I understand your point, I'm not trying to be a jerk.

I am of the opinion that, with changing technologies we must adapt and change our laws and rules. I do not believe that the FD is necessary in a world where, save for the northern states ( ), our sources of information abound.

I don't think that a person who has a liberal bent will have their opinions and ideas changed simply by listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, just as a conservative's ideas would be influenced by listening to Alan Colmes. Anyone of either inclination who doesn't seek information from sources other than those who share their views are, IMO, foolish.

Sadly, most people listen to, read, or watch the same sources day after day, night after night.

This being said, I cannot see how reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will help matters. For whatever reason, conservative talk thrives on radio. For the life of me I can't figure out why. For the brief period of time I listened to it (for about a year, just after 9/11), I only heard the same drivel day after day. The hosts repeat the same talking points every day, week, month, year. The tune gets damn old if you ask me. Yet it thrives. Conservative talk brings in the advertisers and in turn brings in the money, which is, after all, the bottom line. Go figure.

In that vein, for whatever reason, liberal talk radio does not appear to be as successful, yet. I imagine that one of the big reasons for this is, they are late to the party. As I said in my previous paragraph, money is the bottom line. If liberal talk fails to bring in the advertisers and in turn the revenue, it fails. With the foothold conservative talk radio established early in the game, it is an uphill battle for the liberals to get advertising support. They are relatively unknown while teh Hannity's and Limbaugh's are a known entity, an established brand. A sure thing.

None of this happened overnight. It took years and no one noticed, no one said a word. Until now.

I don't think the issue is about fairness, I believe there is an audience for liberal talk radio. I believe the issue that inhibits liberal talk is business. The corporations that own and run radio stations, for the most part, do not have the patience to wait for a liberal talk host to find an audience, or for the audience to find the host. They lose money.

Is it fair for the government to dictate to a private corporation what their product should be?

 

[hjmick]

Alot of huff and puff over a topic that has no real relevence. Pence Amendment vote 309 to 115, just academic at this point.

Yeah, but I am enjoying the cordial exchange of ideas.

Oh, and Care, I'm glad you rediscovered your garden. Enjoy.

 

[Care4all]

You do have a choice. You have the choice not to live in the boonies.

I suppose! But it really is so beautiful here!

WHEN I was a young one..my hubby and I would not have been caught dead outside of a metro area...even told my mother they were NUTS to live in the country....

and now....now I have turned in to my mother....

lol

I just LOVE Mr. Snowshoe Hare that visits me each morning to eat the clover out of my yard! And he pulls it out from the roots! So no need to treat the lawn with non eco chemicals to rid me of it!

I also have mr. and mrs red squirrel that feed on the bird seed, and mr and mrs chipmunk stuffing their cheeks.

And at least 50 different types of birds spotted so far....duck, geese, great herons, and the American Bald Eagle is all over the place!

I had these birds that flew in, at least 100 of them, that came from washington state, clear across the country! They were called Bohemian Waxwings....they landed in my 7 apple trees and sucked on the blossoms in may! It was awesome, though WHEN they first flew in, I had visions of a scene from the movie ''The Birds''....

Birds including Mr and mrs Wild Turkey with their young one feeding every single day in the meadow in front of my house! They are huge! And the Tom, flaired out and strutted his strut in full glory just the other day! That was beautiful to see all of his feathers spread!

Deer, with their fawn, in the meadow, is a near daily sighting.

yes, i am suffering from connectile dysfunction!

but i am learning to LOVE life, nature!

care

ps. sorry for the whole song and a dance, but I am still mesmerized by this new home!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

if americans want more diversity in radio, or more liberals shows etc, shouldnt they just try to get it without government?

you can lobby radio stations, and such. couldnt you?

does the government have to do everything for us, or am i just being unfair?

I suppose! But it really is so beautiful here!

WHEN I was a young one..my hubby and I would not have been caught dead outside of a metro area...even told my mother they were NUTS to live in the country....

and now....now I have turned in to my mother....

lol

I just LOVE Mr. Snowshoe Hare that visits me each morning to eat the clover out of my yard! And he pulls it out from the roots! So no need to treat the lawn with non eco chemicals to rid me of it!

I also have mr. and mrs red squirrel that feed on the bird seed, and mr and mrs chipmunk stuffing their cheeks.

And at least 50 different types of birds spotted so far....duck, geese, great herons, and the American Bald Eagle is all over the place!

I had these birds that flew in, at least 100 of them, that came from washington state, clear across the country! They were called Bohemian Waxwings....they landed in my 7 apple trees and sucked on the blossoms in may! It was awesome, though WHEN they first flew in, I had visions of a scene from the movie ''The Birds''....

Birds including Mr and mrs Wild Turkey with their young one feeding every single day in the meadow in front of my house! They are huge! And the Tom, flaired out and strutted his strut in full glory just the other day! That was beautiful to see all of his feathers spread!

Deer, with their fawn, in the meadow, is a near daily sighting.

yes, i am suffering from connectile dysfunction!

but i am learning to LOVE life, nature!

care

ps. sorry for the whole song and a dance, but I am still mesmerized by this new home!

 

[Care4all]

Care, I know you're not trying to be obtuse, and I understand your point, I'm not trying to be a jerk.

I am of the opinion that, with changing technologies we must adapt and change our laws and rules. I do not believe that the FD is necessary in a world where, save for the northern states ( ), our sources of information abound.

I don't think that a person who has a liberal bent will have their opinions and ideas changed simply by listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, just as a conservative's ideas would be influenced by listening to Alan Colmes. Anyone of either inclination who doesn't seek information from sources other than those who share their views are, IMO, foolish.

Sadly, most people listen to, read, or watch the same sources day after day, night after night.

This being said, I cannot see how reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will help matters. For whatever reason, conservative talk thrives on radio. For the life of me I can't figure out why. For the brief period of time I listened to it (for about a year, just after 9/11), I only heard the same drivel day after day. The hosts repeat the same talking points every day, week, month, year. The tune gets damn old if you ask me. Yet it thrives. Conservative talk brings in the advertisers and in turn brings in the money, which is, after all, the bottom line. Go figure.

In that vein, for whatever reason, liberal talk radio does not appear to be as successful, yet. I imagine that one of the big reasons for this is, they are late to the party. As I said in my previous paragraph, money is the bottom line. If liberal talk fails to bring in the advertisers and in turn the revenue, it fails. With the foothold conservative talk radio established early in the game, it is an uphill battle for the liberals to get advertising support. They are relatively unknown while teh Hannity's and Limbaugh's are a known entity, an established brand. A sure thing.

None of this happened overnight. It took years and no one noticed, no one said a word. Until now.

I don't think the issue is about fairness, I believe there is an audience for liberal talk radio. I believe the issue that inhibits liberal talk is business. The corporations that own and run radio stations, for the most part, do not have the patience to wait for a liberal talk host to find an audience, or for the audience to find the host. They lose money.

Is it fair for the government to dictate to a private corporation what their product should be?

but this is not about talk radio or the rush limbaugh show or the liberals failing at it....i honestly believe this is spin, put out there by the spin machine on the ''right'' in this case.

This is about their news coverage on issues of public interest, and not just political issues.... as i mentioned before, it is about informing the public on issues involving the public who happen to own the airwaves that these stations use to broadcast their message, which is also LIMITED and NOT in any way capable of having a true free market situation, and a medium where us folks in the country get our News and information on local public issues!

And since when is more information, where the public can decide, a restriction on speech? It is dilerverance of free speech, imo.

anyway, we can civily disagree on this!

I've enjoyed it! Thanks!

Gotta go soak some nature in for a bit!

care

 

[Care4all]

if americans want more diversity in radio, or more liberals shows etc, shouldnt they just try to get it without government?

you can lobby radio stations, and such. couldnt you?

does the government have to do everything for us, or am i just being unfair?

there isn;t any more bandwidth to give out martin, airwaves are limited....thus 3 major networks on Broadcast TV verses 100 cable networks.

this law is only involved in Broadcast radio and broadcast tv, (over the PUBLIC'S Airwaves), where there are very few licences for the government to issue.