Democrat Controlled Legislature Set To Restrict Radio Freedom

RakuraiTenjin

RakuraiTenjin

Tank
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
8,099
Reaction score
-2
I don't care whether or not you agree with the viewpoints, you should KNOW this is wrong. FORCING stations to broadcast ideology they do NOT WANT TO is against freedom and the first amendment. The FCC is ridiculous.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/1020200...s/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm

You can bet if Pelosi pushes this through that Bobama will sign it. He may not push for it but you will not see a veto from this guy.

"Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."
 
Please note that the NY Post is officially endorsing McCain as they did with Bush in previous election cycles.
 
So what do you have against this? Mainstream media is liberal isn't it, won't this just mean they have to
actually give your side equal time. Or do you want the media to keep spewing liberal lies.
 
Gah, that article is incredibly stupid. "They're going to do something terrible because we say they're going to do it."
 
meh it might help put back into balance what has long been a one sided opinion based media outlet ..so instead of pandering to the stupid they can go back to appealing to both sides of the coin ..LIKE GOOD JOURNALISM IS SUPPOSED TO DO
 
Wow, demanding fairness on public owned airwaves? What an outrage!!!
 
I for one would like the media to stay biased and liberal.
 
Wait, the american media is liberal?
:LOL:
 
no really, this has preplexed me for years .."liberal" media in the US is synonomous to "conservative" in any other developed country in the world ..at least in it's mainstream form
 
Possibly when they say the "media" they actually mean the "comedy shows"?
 
Eejit said:
Possibly when they say the "media" they actually mean the "comedy shows"?
Click to expand...

The comedy shows are the only true media we have left. So I guess that would be accurate.
 
When people consider O'Reilly a news source, I weep for the future of the world.
 
'Fairness Doctrine' like a terrible substitute for what seems to be sadly lacking in your country in the first place, ie. good journalism.

At the same time I find it hard to sympathise with what sounds like a bunch of angry conservatives who are terrified that Rush Limbaugh is going to be taken away from them. At the moment the 'radical liberal' stations like CNN already make a stab at giving balanced airtime to opposing views, while Fox doesn't even pretend any more. Generally the news media standard over there is so poor that it's hard to see how the Fairness Doctrine would make it worse.
 
CptStern said:
meh it might help put back into balance what has long been a one sided opinion based media outlet ..so instead of pandering to the stupid they can go back to appealing to both sides of the coin ..LIKE GOOD JOURNALISM IS SUPPOSED TO DO
Click to expand...

FORCING station owners to broadcast this is against the first amendment.

Also, it's well known that liberal talk shows do poorly on the radio. I'm not basing that off any ideology, I'm just saying they in general do based on ratings/numbers. Conservative shows just do better in radio.

All you'll see is stations cutting back conservative content so they dont have to air the low rating liberal programs. This is just a way to silence them.

Talk radio is about expression, not forcing someone to pander to a viewpoint.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
FORCING station owners to broadcast this is against the first amendment.
Click to expand...

These are public airwaves. The rules apply differently here.

RakuraiTenjin said:
Also, it's well known that liberal talk shows do poorly on the radio. I'm not basing that off any ideology, I'm just saying they in general do based on ratings/numbers. Conservative shows just do better in radio.
Click to expand...

News sources shouldn't be based off profits. PERIOD.

RakuraiTenjin said:
All you'll see is stations cutting back conservative content so they dont have to air the low rating liberal programs. This is just a way to silence them.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the Fairness Doctrine demands liberal programs. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't even demand equal time. Only that opposing viewpoints are given a chance to speak. This can happen within conservative talk shows. Whole new shows wouldn't be mandated.
 
delusional said:
These are public airwaves. The rules apply differently here.
Click to expand...




delusional said:
News sources shouldn't be based off profits. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Talk radio isn't a "news source", it's entertainment programming. Either way, I don't see how you think any news source can operate without a profit. People don't just do it becaue it's a fun hobby.


delusional said:
I don't believe the Fairness Doctrine demands liberal programs. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't even demand equal time. Only that opposing viewpoints are given a chance to speak. This can happen within conservative talk shows. Whole new shows wouldn't be mandated.
Click to expand...

In the words of Warren Burger " "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.""
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Talk radio isn't a "news source", it's entertainment programming. Either way, I don't see how you think any news source can operate without a profit. People don't just do it becaue it's a fun hobby.
Click to expand...

So as long as a pro-extremist islam radio station was making money from brodcasting their hate it should be allowed to be aired on air waves owned by the american tax payers?
 
No Limit said:
The comedy shows are the only true media we have left. So I guess that would be accurate.
Click to expand...

LIVE from our World News Headquarters at Comedy Central... this is the DAILY SHOW, with JON STEWERT!
 
No Limit said:
So as long as a pro-extremist islam radio station was making money from brodcasting their hate it should be allowed to be aired on air waves owned by the american tax payers?
Click to expand...

Yeah assuming they don't incite people to commit crimes. I'm not sure which law it breaks but I'm fairly sure that's illegal.

I don't think they'd have many listeners here though (besides the first week or so due to curiosity) and their business would fold.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Talk radio isn't a "news source", it's entertainment programming. Either way, I don't see how you think any news source can operate without a profit. People don't just do it becaue it's a fun hobby.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but a lot of people listen to the radio as a news source. And News sources have only recently become entertainment. There used to be time when journalism was a public service. And they were either non-profit or reaped small profits. Now we Americans know more about Paris Hilton then what's going on in DC or the rest of the world. I guess that is a good thing in your mind.

Jintor said:
LIVE from our World News Headquarters at Comedy Central... this is the DAILY SHOW, with JON STEWERT!
Click to expand...

Modern day Jester?

In societies where freedom of speech was not recognized as a right, the court jester - precisely because anything he said was by definition "a jest" and "the uttering of a fool" - could speak frankly on controversial issues[3] in a way in which anyone else would have been severely punished for, and monarchs understood the usefulness of having such a person at their side.[4] Still, even the jester was not entirely immune from punishment, and he needed to walk a thin line and exercise careful judgment in how far he might go - which required him to be far from a "fool" in the modern sense.
Click to expand...
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
In the words of Warren Burger " "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.""
Click to expand...
Quoting someone doesn't mean they're right.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Yeah assuming they don't incite people to commit crimes. I'm not sure which law it breaks but I'm fairly sure that's illegal.

I don't think they'd have many listeners here though (besides the first week or so due to curiosity) and their business would fold.
Click to expand...

Ok, you don't think Islam would get many listeners. Let me give you a better scenerio then. The KKK setting up am stations in the south would certainly get a bunch of listeners. So as long as they make money they should be allowed to brodcast on radio waves owned by the tax payers?

If that's what you feel you have every right to feel that way, I'm guessing you pay taxes too. But I strongly disagree, and I think it's fair to ask what goes out on our airways to be fair.
 
Sounds p stupid, and kind of chavezesque, but knowing the source it's probably blown way out of proportion. It's also quite the leap of (faith?) to assume Obama would support this type of legislation.
 
I'm not hearing anyone explain what is actually wrong with this legislation. Radio waves belong to the public. Anything aired on those airwaves should therefore be beneficial to the american people. The FCC already regulates the content that can be put out on these airwaves, making sure that content is fair seems perfectly reasonable.
 
Because it means someone, somewhere, has a to decide what "fair" means.
 
Any free speech/press proponent should easily be able to see a red flag here.
 
As a fairly liberal Obama supporter ... I think it's obvious that this isn't cool. Personally I think the FCC already goes too far in mandating the content of radio and television.

However ... this doesn't seem to be anything more than bullshit scaremongering. Other than a conservative news outlet saying it's going to happen ... I don't see any evidence that it is actually happening. And their argument with regards to Obama is that apparently even though he's come out against it ... he will support it if it passes ... because they say so. Right.

Bullshit, completely loaded news article.
 
If the democrats were to win a supermajority it wouldn't matter even if Obama was willing to veto it, Pelosi and her chronies like Reid could force it through.
 
Only if the majority is two-thirds in both houses. I don't believe a supermajority is expected.
 
National left-wing radio-shows flop because hosts are incapable of poking-fun at themselves/other Dems. Stations that broadcasted them could barely get more than 300-US per 30-seconds of ad-time, whereas Rush's show brings-in around 3000 per 30-seconds, with advertizers falling-all-over each other.

Secondly, most Dems sense when their IQ's are being insulted by endless, predictable, tape-loopish, hate-the-Republicans rants. Limbaugh would've flopped too, if he'd begun his radio-career with endless hate...

Local left-wing shows succeed because there's no pressure to exclude viewpoints. -So fairness exists, locally. The DNC seem jealous that the left lacks charismatically discussion-provoking radio-hosts that aren't mired-in quasi-70'S-SatNiteLive-ism.
 
That's part of it, but there's a lot of other factors too. Like it or not, the left side of the political spectrum has a lot more of the younger voters, while the right side has a lot more of the older ones. Guess which ones still listen to AM (usually) radio?

Also, there's this weird effect with talk radio at this point where they've essentially just ended up preaching to the choir. Their audience mostly consists of the people who have been listening to talk radio for a very long time, and who will continue to in the future. They already know that they usually agree with what is being said, which is useful since it's often difficult to discuss anything very in-depth on the radio without boring people to death.

But if you try and start up a radio show without an already waiting market for it, you have to win over your listeners, so talking points and simplification won't work. But it's tough getting people to listen without being entertaining either, so reasonable in-depth discussion is also difficult. So it's not particularly surprising that most new radio shows that aren't part of an already existing market (such as conservative radio) fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top