Maybe you missed where the fairness doctrine doesnt apply to newspapers and network and cable TV?
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Deudalus said:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>It is a free market and there is plenty of space for liberals to have their own talk radio.
It isn't Rush or Hannity's fault that no one listens to Air America. You people really scare me sometimes, you really do. I love how you can talk about Bush eroding your civil rights out of one cheek while you are rationalizing squelching freedom of speech out the other.
Truly comical.</end quote></div>
Well, on the flip side. the freedom of speech meme aside. These are equaly "comical":
When "some" conservitives bitch about how the media has a "liberal" bias, and then scream and shout about the fairness doctrine. If the media truely had a "liberal" bias, then bringing back the fairness doctrine would give conservitives a voice that they didn't have before. What are they afraid of?. Maybe they are afraid of alternate viewpoints being heard?. Isn't that a form of censorship.
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Deudalus said:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>It is a free market and there is plenty of space for liberals to have their own talk radio.
It isn't Rush or Hannity's fault that no one listens to Air America. You people really scare me sometimes, you really do. I love how you can talk about Bush eroding your civil rights out of one cheek while you are rationalizing squelching freedom of speech out the other.
Truly comical.</end quote></div>
Well, on the flip side. the freedom of speech meme aside. These are equaly "comical":
When "some" conservitives bitch about how the media has a "liberal" bias, and then scream and shout about the fairness doctrine. If the media truely had a "liberal" bias, then bringing back the fairness doctrine would give conservitives a voice that they didn't have before. What are they afraid of?. Maybe they are afraid of alternate viewpoints being heard?. Isn't that a form of censorship.
Originally posted by: shrumpage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
</end quote></div>
ABC, CBS and NBC are broadcast channels - why wouldn't it apply to them?</end quote></div>
If they are on the radio, I guess it would apply to them. I was referring to TV which is regulated differently.
QT
</end quote></div>
Why would TV be exempt from the fairness doctrine, they use the feq. in the spectrum like radio and have to be licensed by the FCC?
Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
</end quote></div>
ABC, CBS and NBC are broadcast channels - why wouldn't it apply to them?</end quote></div>
If they are on the radio, I guess it would apply to them. I was referring to TV which is regulated differently.
QT
</end quote></div>
Why would TV be exempt from the fairness doctrine, they use the feq. in the spectrum like radio and have to be licensed by the FCC?
</end quote></div>
To the best of my knowledge, based on what I've read about the fairness doctrine, it would only apply to radio and not TV. I'm not exactly sure why, but I'm guessing because most TV channels are paid for (cable, etc), unlike public radioairwaves where anyone can listen for free.
Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
How convenient lol. And yes Newspapers can have a strangle hold on information the same way radio can. Checkout who owns the two papers in the Minneapolis area. I do believe one was recently sold to a PE group. But for a awhile they were both owned by the same company.</end quote></div>
Well yes to some extent newpapers can, but again they are not limited by a finite number of frequencies to spread there information. In other words, its much harder, perhaps impossible, for a newspaper to have a complete monopoly on the information.
QT
</end quote></div>
I wouldnt say it is any harder than AM radio. AM radio is one channel among hundreds. The only thing I can see is if a radio station purchases up the available channels and sits on them. Then I agree, the FCC should be forcing the company to use or lose. But if there are channels that are open and nobody is using them, then forcing the current stations to broadcast a certain way is nothing but trying to silence the opposition.
That should worry just about anybody right or left if the govt thinks it can do such a thing.
Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
How convenient lol. And yes Newspapers can have a strangle hold on information the same way radio can. Checkout who owns the two papers in the Minneapolis area. I do believe one was recently sold to a PE group. But for a awhile they were both owned by the same company.</end quote></div>
Well yes to some extent newpapers can, but again they are not limited by a finite number of frequencies to spread there information. In other words, its much harder, perhaps impossible, for a newspaper to have a complete monopoly on the information.
QT
</end quote></div>
I wouldnt say it is any harder than AM radio. AM radio is one channel among hundreds. The only thing I can see is if a radio station purchases up the available channels and sits on them. Then I agree, the FCC should be forcing the company to use or lose. But if there are channels that are open and nobody is using them, then forcing the current stations to broadcast a certain way is nothing but trying to silence the opposition.
That should worry just about anybody right or left if the govt thinks it can do such a thing.
Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
</end quote></div>
ABC, CBS and NBC are broadcast channels - why wouldn't it apply to them?</end quote></div>
If they are on the radio, I guess it would apply to them. I was referring to TV which is regulated differently.
QT
</end quote></div>
Why would TV be exempt from the fairness doctrine, they use the feq. in the spectrum like radio and have to be licensed by the FCC?
</end quote></div>
To the best of my knowledge, based on what I've read about the fairness doctrine, it would only apply to radio and not TV. I'm not exactly sure why, but I'm guessing because most TV channels are paid for (cable, etc), unlike public radioairwaves where anyone can listen for free.
</end quote></div>
All of the network stations run over the air broadcasts anybody can pickup with a TV just like AM radio.
Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
How convenient lol. And yes Newspapers can have a strangle hold on information the same way radio can. Checkout who owns the two papers in the Minneapolis area. I do believe one was recently sold to a PE group. But for a awhile they were both owned by the same company.</end quote></div>
Well yes to some extent newpapers can, but again they are not limited by a finite number of frequencies to spread there information. In other words, its much harder, perhaps impossible, for a newspaper to have a complete monopoly on the information.
QT
</end quote></div>
I wouldnt say it is any harder than AM radio. AM radio is one channel among hundreds. The only thing I can see is if a radio station purchases up the available channels and sits on them. Then I agree, the FCC should be forcing the company to use or lose. But if there are channels that are open and nobody is using them, then forcing the current stations to broadcast a certain way is nothing but trying to silence the opposition.
That should worry just about anybody right or left if the govt thinks it can do such a thing.
</end quote></div>
Who's going to be silenced??
The govt just doesn't want anyone having a monopoly POV over public airways.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
At least the government is ultimately answerable to the people, who does Clear Channel answer to?
Maybe you missed where the fairness doctrine doesnt apply to newspapers and network and cable TV?
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Genx87 said:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Maybe you missed where the fairness doctrine doesnt apply to newspapers and network and cable TV?</end quote></div>
I was mainly talking about "public" airwaves. i.e. the radio/TV frequency spectrum.
And to the "free market will fix everthing" meme.
The actual fairness doctrine regarding content that existed 30 years ago would be difficult to implement today, since the Pandora's box of unlimited conglomerate ownership has been open for so long. It's a dead letter.
Perhaps I should have worded this hypothetical:
How would you like it if George Soros, a well known billionaire liberal, bought up all the broadcast properties and other media in your area and chose to prohibit any conservative talk on his stations.
To extend it, say he buy your local cable company and decides to pull Fox News Channel and also buys the local paper and decides not to run any conservative opinion pieces. I contend that the people in that community who are conservative would be up in arms with few options for recourse.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative.
Probably because conservatives prefer a liberal bias over government regulation.
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Genx87 said:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Maybe you missed where the fairness doctrine doesnt apply to newspapers and network and cable TV?</end quote></div>
I was mainly talking about "public" airwaves. i.e. the radio/TV frequency spectrum.
And to the "free market will fix everthing" meme.
The actual fairness doctrine regarding content that existed 30 years ago would be difficult to implement today, since the Pandora's box of unlimited conglomerate ownership has been open for so long. It's a dead letter.
Perhaps I should have worded this hypothetical:
How would you like it if George Soros, a well known billionaire liberal, bought up all the broadcast properties and other media in your area and chose to prohibit any conservative talk on his stations.
To extend it, say he buy your local cable company and decides to pull Fox News Channel and also buys the local paper and decides not to run any conservative opinion pieces. I contend that the people in that community who are conservative would be up in arms with few options for recourse.
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Success of conservative talk radio has nothing to do with sheeple waiting for marching orders like you Libs want to think.
It's all about a large portion of the voting public getting sick and tired of left-wing print and TV. Ever notice how ratings for ABC, CBS, NBC, Time Magazine, Newsweek, USA Today, etc. are all at historical lows? People want to hear voices larger and bigger than their own that they can agree and identify with, hence the success of conservative talk radio. A lot their listeners are small/large business owners, military personnel, farmers, etc. People who can't think for themselves? What?
Libs are just being typical cry-baby bed-wetters pulling the "fairness" card.
Life isn't fair as we all know.
Either change your tone to fit that of your readers/listeners and sell more or continue to force left-wing BS down their throats and sell less.
Then again, I am also for the third option: charge a special TV tax on every TV sold and have a really good public broadcast system (like the UK's BBC or Germany's ARD/RTL/ZDF) and just freaking report the facts and nothing else. No spin, no commentary. This is what happened. Period. Done. In that sense "We report, you decide" in its purest form is what we should have.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Success of conservative talk radio has nothing to do with sheeple waiting for marching orders like you Libs want to think.
It's all about a large portion of the voting public getting sick and tired of left-wing print and TV. Ever notice how ratings for ABC, CBS, NBC, Time Magazine, Newsweek, USA Today, etc. are all at historical lows? People want to hear voices larger and bigger than their own that they can agree and identify with, hence the success of conservative talk radio. A lot their listeners are small/large business owners, military personnel, farmers, etc. People who can't think for themselves? What?
Libs are just being typical cry-baby bed-wetters pulling the "fairness" card.
Life isn't fair as we all know.
Either change your tone to fit that of your readers/listeners and sell more or continue to force left-wing BS down their throats and sell less.
Then again, I am also for the third option: charge a special TV tax on every TV sold and have a really good public broadcast system (like the UK's BBC or Germany's ARD/RTL/ZDF) and just freaking report the facts and nothing else. No spin, no commentary. This is what happened. Period. Done. In that sense "We report, you decide" in its purest form is what we should have.</end quote></div>
To paint conservatism with a very broad brush, the answer would generally be... no. Conservatives do not want to think for themselves. Now of course this does not encompass all conservatives by any means as there are a thousand shades of grey in any political affiliation. Now before you go all crazy, let me explain.
As a general attribute American conservatism is extemely authoritarian in nature. This can be seen through a general sense of militarism, support for high levels of law enforcement/punishment for crime, support of increased police powers for fighting terrorism, deification of power figures, etc. Because of this authoritarian streak, conservatives tend to gravitate towards charismatic figures who exert a large amount of influence over the thoughts and opinions of their followers. It's pretty much a natural extention... if you believe in strong authority, you look for someone to dispense that authority. Conservatives in America (mostly) don't take that to that much of an extreme, and authoritarianism isn't by itself always bad as long as it has limits. So, what's wrong with looking for a central figure to dispense it? I say nothing, but lets realize that the success of conservative radio has more to do with the type of people looking for that sort of thing then it does with people trying to "fight the LIEberal media" (that doesn't exist)
It's pretty easy to see when comparing the various types of media that appeal to people of different political stripes. How many people have you heard who will defend Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, tooth and nail on topics, and how many people will you hear give the same level of deference to Al Franken, or... well... pretty much any other liberal figurehead? Hell, I'm just trying to think of a liberal figurehead right now. (John Stewart might be the sole exception, but I don't even really view him as liberal so much as contrarian. Shades of grey.) Liberals don't look for single figureheads for their movements... in fact figureheads tend to set off liberal intellectual snobbery like nothing else. ("pssh, I know better then this guy" style.)
I sincerely doubt this is because Rush and Sean and Co. are just soooo much more correct and so much better then anyone who might have liberal political views, and to be honest I think that political demogaugery just fits conservatism better then it does liberalism. You guys want someone you can point to and say "see!? he's right!". It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different. Sorta like how liberals have all the good political music, and we own the whole sign waving protest thing.
Anyways, from the content of your post it seems likely that you aren't even interested in having a meaningful debate on that topic considering how it was full of things like "bed wetters", but there's always hope right?
Originally posted by: Genx87
The current crop of stations will when they are forced to air 50% of their time to a view nobody listens to. This isnt hard to see if you are forced to do such a thing you will run out of business. Try telling Intel they are have to sell 50% of their product as Pentium IIs and see how their profits look the next quarter.
Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry, but after seeing countless posts in this thread by liberals saying that conservatives can't think for themselves and just want someone to tell them how to think, you hardly have a leg to stand on when it comes to someone wanting to have a meaningful debate.
Its interesting to compare liberals and conservatives on this topic. Conservatives b1tched about the liberal media for years, because of the monopoly that liberals have over TV and newspapers, so what did conservatives do? We started our own news channel, and let the free market take over. Liberals have been b1tching about conservatives having a monopoly over AM talk radio, so what do liberals do? They try and start their own radio station, and when that fails miserably they go whining to the government, to hell with free speech.
BTW, how many of you liberals have called in to these conservative talk radio shows to try and get your voice heard? I hear liberal callers all the time on the shows that I listen to when I'm commuting.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry, but after seeing countless posts in this thread by liberals saying that conservatives can't think for themselves and just want someone to tell them how to think, you hardly have a leg to stand on when it comes to someone wanting to have a meaningful debate.
Its interesting to compare liberals and conservatives on this topic. Conservatives b1tched about the liberal media for years, because of the monopoly that liberals have over TV and newspapers, so what did conservatives do? We started our own news channel, and let the free market take over. Liberals have been b1tching about conservatives having a monopoly over AM talk radio, so what do liberals do? They try and start their own radio station, and when that fails miserably they go whining to the government, to hell with free speech.
BTW, how many of you liberals have called in to these conservative talk radio shows to try and get your voice heard? I hear liberal callers all the time on the shows that I listen to when I'm commuting.
</end quote></div>
Why does name calling by other people affect what I write?
I don't think that you really addressed my point at all though, that being that the nature of conservative minded people is more in line with strong radio personalities then liberals... and that in my opinion is a far stronger indicator as to why conservative radio and personality based shows are so much more popular then liberal ones.
Also, calling in to someone's radio show to argue with them is about the stupidest thing you can possibly do. You're calling someone who not only has a large repository of sympathetic callers waiting to come in right behind you, but he has a mute button for you and he always gets the last word. Simply put no matter how right you are, you are never going to win.
Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
The current crop of stations will when they are forced to air 50% of their time to a view nobody listens to. This isnt hard to see if you are forced to do such a thing you will run out of business. Try telling Intel they are have to sell 50% of their product as Pentium IIs and see how their profits look the next quarter.</end quote></div>
Coporations don't have absolute power to have monopolies over everyone. If Intel had monopoly on making processors then I would argue that there WOULD be govt intervention.
With the increasing consolation of media, especially in radio, there exits the potential for the public airwaves to speak one voice. Well you can say that "I don't have to listen to it if I don't like, if it's biased, etc." However, the problem with is 1) its free public airwaves and 2) I think the public is entitled to fair news/talk when it turns on the radio. In emergencies (natural distasters, etc) radio is usually the only way to dispense new and information if the power is out.
Finally, if I want some biased political talk I will turn on Cable news (which I paid for) or XM (which ppl pay for).
QT
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
A disease that must be purged by expansive powers from Washington DC, right?
Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry, but after seeing countless posts in this thread by liberals saying that conservatives can't think for themselves and just want someone to tell them how to think, you hardly have a leg to stand on when it comes to someone wanting to have a meaningful debate.
Its interesting to compare liberals and conservatives on this topic. Conservatives b1tched about the liberal media for years, because of the monopoly that liberals have over TV and newspapers, so what did conservatives do? We started our own news channel, and let the free market take over. Liberals have been b1tching about conservatives having a monopoly over AM talk radio, so what do liberals do? They try and start their own radio station, and when that fails miserably they go whining to the government, to hell with free speech.
BTW, how many of you liberals have called in to these conservative talk radio shows to try and get your voice heard? I hear liberal callers all the time on the shows that I listen to when I'm commuting.
</end quote></div>
Why does name calling by other people affect what I write?
I don't think that you really addressed my point at all though, that being that the nature of conservative minded people is more in line with strong radio personalities then liberals... and that in my opinion is a far stronger indicator as to why conservative radio and personality based shows are so much more popular then liberal ones.
Also, calling in to someone's radio show to argue with them is about the stupidest thing you can possibly do. You're calling someone who not only has a large repository of sympathetic callers waiting to come in right behind you, but he has a mute button for you and he always gets the last word. Simply put no matter how right you are, you are never going to win.</end quote></div>
You said "Conservatives do not want to think for themselves".....
Anyways, there really isnt much to address, I think you're wrong, but neither of us have any proof besides what we actually think to back it up so whats the point? I don't listen to conservative talk radio just so I can say "see, he's right", I listen to it because I find it entertaining, and I like the fact that they routinely have liberal guests and I can see what the other side is thinking as well. Some of the talk show hosts that I listen to are a little nuts and say some pretty off the wall stuff, its entertaining. I do agree with some of what they say, but I believed that (whatever it is that I agree with) before I heard them say it.
My point about you berating GTaudiophile is that this whole thread has been filled with libs saying that conservatives can't think for themselves, so you shouldn't be too surprised when a conservative gets offended and throws out a couple of insults to the libs. He made very good points in his post, his insults toward liberals had nothing to do with him not being interesting in a meaningful debate, it had everything to do with all of the ignorant liberals posting that crap in this thread.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
So you believe that the fact that there are at least 3 (if not 4, 5, 6 or more.. I don't know) hugely popular conservative radio show hosts has to do with the "Liberal Media"? How do you explain the virtual nonexistence of liberal counterparts to these people? Even in the TV/print media there are virtually zero of these personalities out there that are liberal. I can think of one... Keith Olbermann. Arrayed against him there is Bill-O, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage (briefly.. har har), Shepard Smith, Joe Scarborough, etc.. etc. Considering the country is pretty split 50-50 (and if that were to ever change our perceptions of what is liberal and conservative would change to make it 50-50 again), and so you would think that at least a few would be out there.
I explained very carefully why I think that conservatives don't want to think for themselves... and I mentioned that I was painting with a very broad brush. (of course I don't see how you paint narrowly when discussing entire political movements) I really don't even think it has to be a bad thing, authoritarianism has its place.