Liberals Want End of 'Right-Wing Radio'

And Grover,

THAT is perfectly fine in my book...

I support that 100%

The Government CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO DICTATE TO ME WHAT I WANT TO LISTEN TO.....

As long as you are not advocating that, we can be on the same page....

There have been many emotions passing through this thread, and those emotions are real and well founded on both sides.

It is this very example that I would like for EVERYONE to take note of..

That we were all able to post our opinions here UNRESTRICTED, without Government intervention or restriction...

I was NOT forced to give half of my post to a view point I did not want to endorse...
Grover was NOT forced to either...

This very thread is indicative of what our Founding Fathers fought and died to create and so many others have fought and died to preserve..

The very fact that we ARE freely able to communicate our personal opinions so unfettered is the single greatest argument AGAINST ANY law that would restrict the radio, the internet, newspapers, tv, or what ever other medium that may arise...

WE ARE FREE

If WABC chooses to only broadcast Conservative and WCDE chooses to broadcast Liberal, that is the wonderful beauty of this nation in it's finest...

Perhaps I was somewhat long winded in my approach when it can be very succinctly stated this way...

The Conservatives are not calling for the restriction of the Liberal Television News, ABC, CBS, or NBC , because they have rationalized, through common sense, that this is a violation of one of our most basic rights...

Common Sense....

This exchange and the hundreds that go on here at ATS, is a shining example of why the lib attempt to silence the Conservative voice must never be allowed...

I will fight and I will die to ensure that never happens...

These are MY rights, they are your rights, they are OUR rights..

Semper

I still don't see why we need more diverse ownership of radio stations. It reminds me of the schoolground, where everybody gets a chance to pitch, and scores aren't kept.

Any talk radio station that I listen to welcomes discussion on all points of view. Nobody is left out. That should satisfy any diversity objective, imo.

Politicians are now beginning to realize that talk radio is a very powerful example of the First Amendment. Just look what it did to the recent immigration bill - it helped to defeat it.

I would be extremely wary of any person, politician or not, who wants to restrict that freedom of expression in any way.

And lets put this issue of the intelligence of those that listen to Rush to bed, shall we...

Here is the results of the Pew Research Center study on News Audiences..

Fascinating...

News audiences vary widely in age, education, and how much they know about what's going on in the nation and the world. Most regular consumers of news are better informed, better educated, and older than the average American. But the audiences for some news sources stand out in this respect.

Judged by their answers to three news knowledge questions2, the most informed audiences belong to the political magazines, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the O'Reilly Factor, news magazines, and online news sources. Close behind are the regular audiences for NPR and the Daily Show.

people-press.org...

So PLEASEEEE stop the lies about the listeners of Conservative Talk Radio..

Semper

OK... first off in regards to the subject matter of this thread: It is not about the fairness doctrine; its about a study on how to provide a counter-balance the conservative predominance on talk radio; not eliminate it, or restrict it, and their suggestion is to encourage an increase diversity of ownership of radio stations. More owners = more stations = more diversity = more exposure (theoretically) to different viewpoints. It does not bode well for our democracy to have the majority of our media controlled by only a handful individuals and corporations.

An example of this is the role that William Randolph Hurst played in the Spanish American war. He was the predominate voice in the media in his day and was a big proponent for an American empire... he took the faulty boiler explosion on the Maine in the Havana harbor and made it into a terrorist attack and made "Remember the Maine" a battle cry and was credited as one of the major reasons we went to war with Spain. At the same time other papers that were reporting the truth of the matter, that there was never an attack were drowned out by his roar. THAT is the type of influence it seeks to counter-act.

This proposal could just as easily be suggesting the best way to counter-act the dumbing down of the air waves by stupid DJ's and stupid DJ acts like John boy and Billy is to have a more divers ownership of stations. It is not about censorship... its about encouraging the diversity of opinion.

As for the fairness doctrine. I do not want anyone telling me who and what to listen to either and as I understand it, this proposed fairness doctrine doesn't do that. It would rather require a broadcaster to offer airtime to opposing viewpoints in a debate. Just like it did before it was repealed. If the broadcaster gave airtime to one candidate then they would be required to give equal airtime to their opponent. I don't see anything wrong in that which is why I support it. I do not read it as saying if I broadcast a conservative talk show, then I have to broadcast a liberal one as well. If it did I would be opposed to that also. Personally I think it would be wonderful if a broadcaster chose to do that, but the active word is chose, not required.

Finally if all things were equal except that liberal talk shows dominated the airwaves and someone proposed the fairness doctrine as a way to increase exposure to conservative voices; would all of you who are now shrieking about how it would be in violation of the first amendment and censorship and government meddling etc; still be opposing it?



[edit on 29-6-2007 by grover]

You still haven't said anything new, grover. What is wrong with giving the opportunity for all POV's to be heard, as opposed to making it a requirement, as you propose?

As I mentioned earlier, all the talk shows that I listen to welcome opposing points of view on issues. They bring on guest speakers from all spectrums; they encourage and invite all callers.

As a matter of fact, if the topic is being dominated by supporters of the issue, the radio hosts will often screen out those callers and make a plea for callers who do not support the issue to call in. They encourage all points of view.

And it's all done without government intervention. Why do we need "diverse ownership" again?

Originally posted by jsobecky
I still don't see why we need more diverse ownership of radio stations.

Here is your answer.... taken from the report we are supposed to be discussing.

"An analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations found that stations "owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows." In contrast, "stations controlled by group owners--those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market--were statistically more likely to air conservative talk." Markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were "less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations."

It highlights what I have been trying to say about the concentration of ownership into a few hands... for example ALL of the radio stations in the Roanoke Valley are owned by either Clear Channel Communications or Cumulus Communications; consequently it doesn't matter what type of music these station play they are all formated the same and get their music from the same broadcasts; the only "local" aspects are the "DJ's" that are hired to be the local voice.


You missed this Josbecky. I said: "

I do not read it as saying if I broadcast a conservative talk show, then I have to broadcast a liberal one as well. If it did I would be opposed to that also. Personally I think it would be wonderful if a broadcaster chose to do that, but the active word is chose, not required."

[edit on 29-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover

...as I understand it, this proposed fairness doctrine doesn't do that. It would rather require a broadcaster to offer airtime to opposing viewpoints in a debate. Just like it did before it was repealed. If the broadcaster gave airtime to one candidate then they would be required to give equal airtime to their opponent....

[edit on 29-6-2007 by grover]

I should have stressed public debate as opposed to just a debate...i.e. between two candidates or two issues of public import.

Well grover, you have shown me what happens when there is diverse ownership of radio stations. They tend to be less likely to air conservative talk.

I'm not well-versed in how syndication works, but this may have something to do with it. Maybe the successful conservative shows (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) are too expensive for the smaller, diverse owners to carry?

grover says:

An example of this is the role that William Randolph Hurst played in the Spanish American war. He was the predominate voice in the media in his day and was a big proponent for an American empire... he took the faulty boiler explosion on the Maine in the Havana harbor and made it into a terrorist attack and made "Remember the Maine" a battle cry and was credited as one of the major reasons we went to war with Spain. At the same time other papers that were reporting the truth of the matter, that there was never an attack were drowned out by his roar. THAT is the type of influence it seeks to counter-act.

This proposal could just as easily be suggesting the best way to counter-act the dumbing down of the air waves by stupid DJ's and stupid DJ acts like John boy and Billy is to have a more divers ownership of stations. It is not about censorship... its about encouraging the diversity of opinion

And if we were talking about media even 50 years ago, I may agree with you. But we aren't. You can obtain your news from thousands of sources, you can obtain opinion from even more sources than that. You can't even pull a hoax on a bunch of inet surfers at ATS without getting called on it. People are much more apt to ask questions than they were at one time - people question not only their government but the media as well.

I do not agree with your statement that it "is about encouraging the diversity of opinion." That may be what they are trying to sell you but it just ain't so. For decades I heard conservatives cry that the print and airwave media is liberal leaning and their views are not adequately represented. Too bad - start your own station. And they did - Foxnews. I feel the same way about liberals who complain about talk radio. Too bad - start your own station. And they did and it failed. Now they want to force the issue. Puuleease!

What this comes down to is congressmen can't fathom that the American people could actually be against something they are for - it has to be a vast (right) or (left) wing conspiracy. BS - it is Americans actually thinking for themselves, deciding for themselves and pissing off the status quo. Which is exactly why we have a President and Congress with the lowest approval ratings in a century.

And that my friend, is a beautiful thing.

B.

Originally posted by semperfortis
~~~~~~~

Stillz,

Whether he "qualified" it or not, his words were EXACTLY as I quoted...

Of course after the backlash and when he realized what he would be facing, he backtracked...

Typical

Semper

Semper,

Hey, you are talking about the Real Time episode from recent on HBO right?

I need to go back and watch that, because I remember something different, Mahers attitude didn't really seem like he was wishing death on anyone....

I'll check it out this weekend, I know this one is on youtube....

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well grover, you have shown me what happens when there is diverse ownership of radio stations. They tend to be less likely to air conservative talk.

I'm not well-versed in how syndication works, but this may have something to do with it. Maybe the successful conservative shows (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) are too expensive for the smaller, diverse owners to carry?

AND that is not the same thing as censorship. BTW I don't know if he still does, but when he started Limbraugh gave his show away to broadcasters.

To Bleys: As for pulling hoaxes.... four words...weapons of mass destruction.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Majic
And get used to it, because if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, you can bet there will be plenty of pressure to apply it to the Internet as well -- including ATS.

Which is exactly why I oppose it even though I am very liberal.

As much as I don't enjoy Rush, I want him to have his outlet - because freedom of speech allows me to have my outlet too.

I don't think so; the internet is an entirely different kettle of fish... the diversity of opinion on the internet far exceeds any other media except perhaps the printed word.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well grover, you have shown me what happens when there is diverse ownership of radio stations. They tend to be less likely to air conservative talk.

Now think about that one for a minute.

The fewer owners there are, the more likely that they are to broadcast conservative talk.
The more owners there are, the less likely they are to broadcast conservative talk.

consequently more owners = greater diversity of viewpoints.
less owners = less diversity of viewpoints.

So based on that equation alone.... just who is stifling whom?

Originally posted by grover
AND that is not the same thing as censorship. BTW I don't know if he still does, but when he started Limbraugh gave his show away to broadcasters.

You can rest assured that he doesn't give his show away to broadcasters these days.

Btw, AT&T gave away the code for UNIX to Berkeley and other universities...

Anyway, I rest my case: as long as current owners allow all points of view to be heard on their station, there is no need for the gummint to get involved.

So based on that equation alone.... just who is stifling whom?

Stifling implies intent. The current owners are merely giving the public what they want to hear; they're not stifling the other side.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by jsobecky]

And Xerox gave GUI to to Apple (which later Microsoft stole), and your point is?

I would have to say the real acid test would be to see if listeners to, say Clear Channel started requesting Al Franken for example whether or not they would go along with it or not. AND with Clear Channel's track record, I seriously doubt it.

Damn chocolate chip cookie crumbs in me keyboard makes for sticky keys. Wonder how they got there?

Well as far as Al Franken, I do know that Bill O'Reilly has invited him on his show at any time. Franken refuses.

Just this week, Hannity stated that he would gladly co-host his show with Hillary for one week. Same response.

Personally I have no idea because I don't listen to ANY talk radio, I listen to NPR and my own music collection and thats it.

Originally posted by grover
And Xerox gave GUI to to Apple (which later Microsoft stole), and your point is?

I would have to say the real acid test would be to see if listeners to, say Clear Channel started requesting Al Franken for example whether or not they would go along with it or not. AND with Clear Channel's track record, I seriously doubt it.

Damn chocolate chip cookie crumbs in me keyboard makes for sticky keys. Wonder how they got there?

Careful what you wish for grover...... Here's your acid test.

KPOJ Portland Oregon, Progressive Talk Radio station Owned by Clear Channel.


www.answers.com...


Radio station Conglomerates aren't red or blue ......they are green. Whatever makes them money is what they put on. It really is quite simple. Progressive Talk works in Portland, they do it. Conservative talk works in the Cornbelt, are you shocked?

Well thats good... I am pleased. Also though consider the dynamics it is Portland Oregon, a very liberal/progressive kind of place.