next target of the left will be talk radio

[healthmyths]

In fact... why do "liberals" SHUN the label "Liberals"???
Ever hear Obama say "I'm a Liberal"????
Why are they so afraid?

Maybe it is because of this study...
"Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative.
This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal."
In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals

So someone is LYING... because Conservatives OUTNUMBER Liberals over 2 to 1... 50% more Conservatives then Liberals!!!!

 

[Lakhota]

next target of the left will be talk radio

NEWS FLASH: Hate radio was, is, and will continue to be a target of the left.

 

[Pogo]

Talk radio is fine. Hate radio is not fine.

What the Fairness Doctrine did from 1949 to 1987 was require that controversy on the radio be a dialogue (multiple voices). Once it was abolished by the Reaganites was exactly when we got the Lush Rimjob monologue style, where you could just blurt out anything and never have to put up with a challenge to it. The timing of that is significant; our discourse has been hyperpolarized ever since.

Nothing stops liberal turds from buying radio stations and putting their own views on the air - nothing, that is, except for the fact that every such attempt so far has been a colossal commercial failure. The public just doesn't have an appetite to be preached at by smug, whiny, left-wing humbugs. "Freedom of speech" means "free of government regulation."

It doesn't mean "on the air anywhere". If you put your agenda on a station in Port Fart, Idaho, and I respond on a station in East Jipip New Jersey, we haven't reached the same audience, have we? What we've done is polarized our two stations on opposite sides.

The FD was put in place for much the same reason the FCC was set up: to ensure public service on the public's airwaves. Unlike newsprint or now the internet, the airwaves are finite; you can only fit so many stations on the dial. And since discourse is democracy, that's what the FD was set up to protect-- within any one station. Otherwise you have a monologue station, or clusters of monologue stations, and that doesn't serve the public interest. As far as left wingers failing at the same game it might just be that lefties aren't interested in monologue and polarization. Because again, like it or not, democracy means discourse -- and that's not some brand of fast food chain to be sold in some kind of "market competition". Which segues to...

It's interesting to see who's afraid of their views being unchallenged. It would be like one of us putting a controversial post up here, and then locking the thread so nobody could comment.

Turds like you are afraid of having their views questioned. That's what the whole push for the "fairness doctrine" is about. Commercial stations couldn't put a show like Rush's on the air if they constantly had to donate air time to whatever group objected to something he said. Liberals know that.

Commercial stations did put shows on the air under the FD. Limblob certainly didn't invent the concept of talk radio; he invented the concept of talk radio as monologue. Like the one you'd like to have here. The difference before and after Blob was that before, you got a balance of issues and after, you got polarization and the idea of politics divided into red and blue teams where you trash-talk your opponent with "turds like you" instead of the issues.

So the idea of having one's views questioned is exactly what discourse is. If I were "afraid of having my views questioned", why the hell would I be on a message board?

It's a dying breed though, literally. Said one Program Director during the Sandra Fluke/Lush Rimjob kerfuffle: "The age of the average Limbaugh listener? Deceased". Bitter old men, dying off. The demographics of the recent election just affirm it.
.

The thing about people is that they get smarter as they get older. That's why the young vote for hosebags like Obama.

See directly above. And here's some music to go with it

Then again, I'm the expert on radio and you're the expert on little kids giving the finger. We each have our specialty.
.

 

[LeftofLeft]

next target of the left will be talk radio

NEWS FLASH: Hate radio was, is, and will continue to be a target of the left.

Hate Radio is simply radio content hated by The Left. Who cares.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them go after right-wing talk radio (MSNBC is just fine, though, interestingly), given their history of trying to shut down opposing speech.

It would be a mistake if they did, though. Some of their best ammo comes from just letting the hardcore right-wingers talk.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

 

[Mac1958]

next target of the left will be talk radio

NEWS FLASH: Hate radio was, is, and will continue to be a target of the left.

What about hate TV?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K7PfNJUEI]Ed Schultz -Republicans want you dead! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mac1958]

next target of the left will be talk radio

NEWS FLASH: Hate radio was, is, and will continue to be a target of the left.

What about hate TV?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K7PfNJUEI]Ed Schultz -Republicans want you dead! - YouTube[/ame]

And what about left-wing hate radio?

When I see you folks being intellectually honest, I'll believe this stuff isn't just a steaming pole of partisan horseshit, a transparent attempt to stifle opposing speech.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoqzR9Rf4C0]Mike Malloy : I Hate These People - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Seawytch]

.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them go after right-wing talk radio (MSNBC is just fine, though, interestingly), given their history of trying to shut down opposing speech.

It would be a mistake if they did, though. Some of their best ammo comes from just letting the hardcore right-wingers talk.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

That's funny because I don't know any of "them" that want to silence RW radio. They don't want less Glen Becks, Mark Levines or Rush Limbaughs, they just want more Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Millers and Thom Hartmans.

How have "they" tried to "shut down" opposing speech? The Fairness Doctrine (no, I'm not advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine) didn't shut down opposing speech, it required it.

I don't want to see RW radio go away, just broken up enough to let other voices in. We no longer have public airways...they, like everything else these days, are corporate owned. Clear Channel owns our public airways.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them go after right-wing talk radio (MSNBC is just fine, though, interestingly), given their history of trying to shut down opposing speech.

It would be a mistake if they did, though. Some of their best ammo comes from just letting the hardcore right-wingers talk.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

That's funny because I don't know any of "them" that want to silence RW radio. They don't want less Glen Becks, Mark Levines or Rush Limbaughs, they just want more Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Millers and Thom Hartmans.

How have "they" tried to "shut down" opposing speech? The Fairness Doctrine (no, I'm not advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine) didn't shut down opposing speech, it required it.

I don't want to see RW radio go away, just broken up enough to let other voices in. We no longer have public airways...they, like everything else these days, are corporate owned. Clear Channel owns our public airways.

I'm all for more and more diverse voices, the more the merrier, I'm a First Amendment purist. I just don't want to see happen due to government statutes and left wing intimidation. Create a good product and get it up & running. Create interest, satisfy demand. So far, only the right wingers have figured out how to do that. The left simply and clearly has not.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Before 1996 no one company could own more than 40 radio stations. The passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act ended that restriction and by 2002 Clear Channel owned 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominated the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets.

 

[Seawytch]

.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them go after right-wing talk radio (MSNBC is just fine, though, interestingly), given their history of trying to shut down opposing speech.

It would be a mistake if they did, though. Some of their best ammo comes from just letting the hardcore right-wingers talk.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

That's funny because I don't know any of "them" that want to silence RW radio. They don't want less Glen Becks, Mark Levines or Rush Limbaughs, they just want more Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Millers and Thom Hartmans.

How have "they" tried to "shut down" opposing speech? The Fairness Doctrine (no, I'm not advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine) didn't shut down opposing speech, it required it.

I don't want to see RW radio go away, just broken up enough to let other voices in. We no longer have public airways...they, like everything else these days, are corporate owned. Clear Channel owns our public airways.

I'm all for more and more diverse voices, the more the merrier, I'm a First Amendment purist. I just don't want to see happen due to government statutes and left wing intimidation. Create a good product and get it up & running. So far, only the right wingers have figured out how to do that. The left simply and clearly has not.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Look deeper...

'What Public Airwaves?': Fighting the Death of Portland's Clear Channel-owned Progressive KPOJ and Seattle's CBS-Owned Progressive KPTK

 

[blackhawk]

Here is the only reason a Democrat would want the fairness doctrine back in regards to talk radio the right succeeds at it the left fails at.

 

[OODA_Loop]

In other words exactly what we have the capacity to do here on this message board. Now what's your prob with that?

I don't have to allow for opposing viewpoints on my privatly owned network.

USMB's owners could do the same thing. Ban you from posting at will.

 

[healthmyths]

NEWS FLASH: Hate radio was, is, and will continue to be a target of the left.

What about hate TV?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K7PfNJUEI]Ed Schultz -Republicans want you dead! - YouTube[/ame]

And what about left-wing hate radio?

When I see you folks being intellectually honest, I'll believe this stuff isn't just a steaming pole of partisan horseshit, a transparent attempt to stifle opposing speech.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoqzR9Rf4C0]Mike Malloy : I Hate These People - YouTube[/ame]

Evidently YOU have never like me taken any journalism classes, much less do I think you are able of sound reasoning and rational thinking!
Rush,Sean,et.al. you consider "hate" they are very very clear they are "commentators"... NOT newscasters...
Here in case you don't comprehend the difference... "commentators" are like editorial writers or "columnists" they have an opinion.
Now Schultz, Matthews, Madow, THEY don't consider themselves "commentators" but "newspeople".. journalists"!
But THEY have a bias they don't admit it!!!

They too are commentators but do they tell you they are conservative/liberal/progressive? NO because they are AFRAID like most liberals of
the being called "liberals"... so they are "public" news reporters!!!!

And idiots like yOU believe every word including these words from so -called "journalists"..

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort

 

[Katzndogz]

Air America was the liberal answer to conservative talk radio. It was supposed to be so popular that the rating would drive Rush Limbaugh off the air in shame. Air America went bankrupt. It was there, but no one listened. If the companies that own radio stations were compelled to hire leftist commentators it would end up the same way. People would just change the channel to another station that had programming that they liked. Liberals would get the same low listenership that they always get.

 

[Pogo]

Air America was the liberal answer to conservative talk radio. It was supposed to be so popular that the rating would drive Rush Limbaugh off the air in shame. Air America went bankrupt. It was there, but no one listened. If the companies that own radio stations were compelled to hire leftist commentators it would end up the same way. People would just change the channel to another station that had programming that they liked. Liberals would get the same low listenership that they always get.

That might be a cute story --- if political ideology were some kind of commodity to be bought and sold like donuts. For the Limblobs and Glenn Blechs, that's really all it is. What they sell is fear and paranoia and conspiracy and political gossip. That doesn't really seem to sell on the left. Too negative. Again, see the "bitter old man" audience.

Radio ratings are no more a measure of assent than they are on TV -- they measure attention. Obviously if Thom Hartmann is on the air dissecting the history of the labor movement, while Lush Rimjob is on at the same time shrieking "Slut! Prostitute!" They're lined up around the block!" -- then Lush Rimjob will get the bigger audience. For some, the standards of broadcast are lower than others. Ad hominem will always garner more attention than thought. It's the same reason the attention whores on this board use it when they can't think of a response.

Air America, aside from its internal mismanagement, tried to use the Switcheroo Technique to turn ad hominem toward the right. Basically if it proves anything, it's that the right seems impressed by ad hominem while the left doesn't. AirAmerica's successors are still on the air -- I forget what they're called but they've been on the air here uninterrupted. They've evolved to be less attack dog and more informative, and it's worked, for the same reason any programming tweaks work... it's what the audience wants.

So it comes down to what your goal is: intelligent civil discourse, or attention whoring. If all you're there for is ratings numbers to sell an advertiser's product, then you want the latter. But the factor that sways the argument is that the airwaves are defined as belonging to the public, and as such are licensed to stations to serve the public interest.

But this idea of pretending ratings numbers mean some kind of acceptance or rejection of some ideology is a fantasy. What they measure is attention. That's it.

 

[Pogo]

.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them go after right-wing talk radio (MSNBC is just fine, though, interestingly), given their history of trying to shut down opposing speech..

uuhhhhh..... link?
Quote?
History?
Citation?
Anecdote?
Anything?

 

[Pogo]

.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them go after right-wing talk radio (MSNBC is just fine, though, interestingly), given their history of trying to shut down opposing speech.

It would be a mistake if they did, though. Some of their best ammo comes from just letting the hardcore right-wingers talk.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

That's funny because I don't know any of "them" that want to silence RW radio. They don't want less Glen Becks, Mark Levines or Rush Limbaughs, they just want more Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Millers and Thom Hartmans.

How have "they" tried to "shut down" opposing speech? The Fairness Doctrine (no, I'm not advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine) didn't shut down opposing speech, it required it.

I don't want to see RW radio go away, just broken up enough to let other voices in. We no longer have public airways...they, like everything else these days, are corporate owned. Clear Channel owns our public airways.

I'm all for more and more diverse voices, the more the merrier, I'm a First Amendment purist. I just don't want to see happen due to government statutes and left wing intimidation. Create a good product and get it up & running. Create interest, satisfy demand. So far, only the right wingers have figured out how to do that. The left simply and clearly has not.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Forever live the First Amendment. But again, political philosophy is not some "product" to be bought and sold like soap. To reduce thought to that level isn't honoring the First Amendment. It's spitting on it. It's reducing Freedom of Speech to a corporate commodity where the biggest megaphone wins. That's not the spirit of democracy; it's corporatocracy. See my sig line...

There's no effective difference between on the one hand silencing a voice we don't like, and on the other hand redefining it to a "commodity" that can then be outsold by ClearChannel on the basis that they have more money. Either way, you squelch dissent and produce monologue.

 

[Harry Dresden]

everything right or republican or right or republican related the left is determined to divide and conquer.
Its only natural the next target will be talk radio. Give it time

Roger?s Rules » The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio

i wish someone would get on all the Radio broadcasts here in S.Cal period......IT SUCKS!.....some of the worst radio in the Country....

 

[Pogo]

In other words exactly what we have the capacity to do here on this message board. Now what's your prob with that?

I don't have to allow for opposing viewpoints on my privatly owned network.

USMB's owners could do the same thing. Ban you from posting at will.

Sure they can, but the internet is in no way the same thing as the public airwaves. The latter belong to We the People and we require that those we license serve the public interest. There's no such requirement for the internet. Nor is it limited by the two ends of a finite dial space.

IOW you wouldn't have to allow for opposing viewpoints because you own a station or network; you'd have to allow them because you use the public airwaves. On the former basis, you call the shots. But when you take it to the public airwaves, We the People do.

s to Seawytch for pointing out TelComm 96, a turning point by which Bill Clinton did more damage to this country that probably anything else in his eight years. Happily, once ClearChannel got drunk on power with its 1200 stations it ran into money trouble and had to start selling off, though it's still sitting on 850 radio stations plus program distribution networks. Interestingly it was bought out by Bain Capital in 2008 ...which means in a queer way Mitt Romney is Lush Rimjob's boss.