Let’s see a cite proving that. (Not one you interpret as “really meaning that.”)
Good ideas do not belong to those wealthy enough to own radio or TV stations. Third and 4th party views can provide ideas and alternate policies that the two parties will not back. They should have life and the public should have access to them. The Green Party can claim some of their ideas are being co-opted now. If they had access to the stations perhaps we would have seen the light a lot sooner.
If 4th party ideas are bad, you can listen and then reject them. But it is not harmful to learn about other parties and what drives them.
Speech that requires money to be heard is not free speech. it is expensive speech.
Not entirely. There are many license-free bands out there. If you want to run wireless internet, say, over the 902-928 MHz band you pays your money and you takes your chances. FCC/CRTC waivers are also available if you’re going to be running over the maximum allowed power if you can make the case you won’t be interfering with anyone because your installation is in the middle of the desert, say.
CB radio frequencies aren’t parceled out to users like radio station frequencies are. GPS doesn’t carry any information from the user. Satellite radio is not FCC regulated. WIFI is not even close to the same type of medium as radio. And except for the word “satellite”, none of those things are what Sam Stone mentioned.
Again, none of those things are public commodities like radio waves are.
Letting them have more choices and input on what they listen to.
Fine, but the contradiction being pointed out was yours or the rights in general. Saying progressives can’t compete in the market place of ideas while simultaneously complaining about all the liberal bias in the media.
They have plenty of choice. Someone funds a radio station (it airs)
Someone else funds a different radio station (it airs)
Are you telling me that with all the so-called elite liberals, (who speak so well and are so educated) they don’t have the money to fund their own station?
There isn’t any contradiction. Conservative talk radio is out-competing NPR and other “progressive” radio, largely because of NPR’s liberal bias, and even though NPR is subsidized and conservative talk radio is not. That’s why the czar wants to fine talk radio and give the money to NPR, because they cannot compete.
One side is winning, the other is losing. Therefore this guy wants to tilt the playing field.
Regards,
Shodan
Just so! Until NPR gets rid of screaming radicals like Mark Shields and raving Trotskyites like Bill Moyers, how can they expect to have any credibility in comparsion to the calm and rational analysis of Mike the Savage Wiener, or the cogent and credible insights of Glenn Batshit?
A station as in one? Here my impression which admittedly would require some study. As FCC regulations were changed to allow media cooperations to own more and more forms of media and more markets the choices on the local level disappeared. A local station gets bought out by a media giant and the programing becomes what is approved by cooperate HQ which often means a lot of syndicated shows. So, in a lot of markets choices are limited and the locals have little input.
The question is how can one side be winning so much so that the other side can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas {your words} ,simultaneously, there is huge liberal bias by so many networks. How can so much liberal bias exist if liberal ideas can’t compete? See the contradiction yet?
*[NOTE:The “it” in the above quote is the Fairness Doctrine] *
This is not true. Now it is more necessary than ever because there are no longer “many different hands”. The vast majority of broadcast outlets are controlled by only a handful of large corporations.
A very big “oops” indeed and if that was the gist of the argument then, it certainly doesn’t apply anymore.
What’s odd to me is that, on this Board at least, support/criticism of the Fairness Doctrine seems to break down along political lines. Conservatives are against it and liberals are for it. That doesn’t make any sense. If conservatives believe that the news media is dominated and controlled by liberals, shouldn’t they be FOR the Fairness Doctrine so that they can have opportunities to respond on air to all of that left-wing propaganda? Could it be that conservatives actually know the truth about the mass corporate media–that if anything it slants to the *right *and big business?
No. Other than creating a silly topic of conversation every so often about the “liberal media”, it doesn’t make any difference to me what they report so long as they don’t make stuff up or assert things that are unduly manipulative.
See, you had something there until you tried to take this last shot at conservatives. The statement you made above might possibly have had some validity, but Joe Blow the average talk radio listener cares not a whit about big business. Most of them are salt-of-the-earth blue collar workers making a living, and know nothing about companies like Clear Channel except that they exist because of station ID breaks.
Don’t impute malice where none exists.
That comment doesn’t address the contradiction.
A. The news media are liberally biased.
B. Liberal views fail when competing in the marketplace of ideas.
If the news media are liberally biased, then liberal views succeeded in the competition in the marketplace of ideas. There’s your contradiction.
-FrL-
Well the fairness doctrine only applies to conservative talk show hosts. The “liberal bias” in the rest of the media is not considered bias, per se, by the politcal establishment.
That’s the problem with the fairness act. Who is to determine what is news and what is opinion? It involves a political decision somewhere to determine this.
AS for liberals winning the war of ideas…well not on radio apparently. Which is why the want the fairness doctrine. It would force radio stations to carry liberals and basically bankrupt them as they wouldn’t be able to sell radio time (as liberal opinion doesn’t attract as many viewers). That’s the point.
A true “fairness doctrine” would be to let liberals have their own shows on radio…they can pay for it from their advertising and if they can’t get any, then either they’re off the air or can survive on donations from their liberal audience or something.
But liberals don’t want that. They want to force their views on a captive audience of conservatives, and if that won’t work, then force Limbaugh etc. off the air by forcing radio stations to carry 3 hours per day of dead air (liberal shows which can’t get advertising dollars).
One liberal I had a conversation about this insisted they should enact it to force Fox to carry a liberal rebuttal for 20 minutes or so for every hour Fox is on the air. And FORCE conservatives (how?) to listen to it.
Well what about MSNBC I said? Why can’t liberals just watch that instead of Fox? Why can’t conservatives who want a counterpoint watch MSNBC? And should MBNBC have a rebuttal given against them by conservatives? “No, she said, MSNBC isn’t biased, and the point is that conservatives COULD watch it, but they DON’T. So we need to interrupt their show and make them hear the truth.”
That’s the liberal mindset unfortunately. We’re right, you’re wrong, you’re going to listen to our side and not switch the dial and if you do, we’ll shut down your whole radio station.
AS for the “radio isn’t a right, the gov’t has the right to make sure they are fulfilling the ‘needs of the people’”. It’s ridiculous. There are many, many radio stations…how are they all not ‘serving the needs of the people’? How could that be in a competitive marketplace? Are ‘the needs of the people’ not able to attract advertising dollars? Isn’t that what a station like NPR is for? Isn’t that enough? Must every station satisfy the ‘needs of the people’ as determined by some policitcal party? Sounds ripe for abuse.
The fairness doctrine is just a tool to shut down speech liberals don’t like. That’s all there is to it.
Having read some of your posts recently, it’s understandable that you would say this whilst ignoring the fact that the conservative mindset is exactly what you ascribe to liberals. Tea parties. Birthers. Impeach Obama. Loud cries of “socialist!”. Shouting people down at town hall meetings (even shouting down elected representatives). Carrying signs advocating the murder of our president. Talk show hosts who cut people’s microphones off if they express a difference of opinion.
I think you think everyone thinks like you think. You’re wrong.
Are you really so out of touch you’d claim the near monopoly ClearChannel, known for it’s deceptive, and nonlocal DJ practices, corporate approved mass (and usually RIAA bribed) playlists is an example of diversity?
OK, now you’re making my head hurt. If you’re listening to a liberal station, and you turn if off, we’ll shut down the liberal station?
Just for the record, Clear Channel isn’t doing all that well anymore. It’s been selling off its stations as fast as it could, and often been having trouble finding a buyer. They just laid off about 2500 people. The Clear Channel model has pretty much failed.
Any tiny shred of evidence to support this? Any at all? You might want to read the Wikki page on the FD
enacted in 1949. Probably not aimed at Fox or Limbaugh although it’s purpose was to
so Fox must be complying already.
There’s fact and then there’s if and how the facts are presented. We can’t eliminate all bias in choosing how to tell a story but on important public issues we can strive to present all the relevant facts and keep biased opinion to a minimum. Presenting a conservative or a liberal leaning viewpoint is not a major problem. Repeatedly slanting the facts , leaving out relevant facts, making sure you mention the negative of an issue much more than you mention the positive is a problem. It’s a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion through use of the media. People who need a license and claim to be presenting the news need to be more responsible to the public.
Again, any tiny shred of evidence for this?
Another way would be for folks who claim to be journalists and claim to be helping to inform the public to actually do so, by having intelligent informed guests representing different ideas {not just far out sensational ones}
It is a public service to offer real facts and intelligent opinion and perspective on important issues. There are honest thoughtful conservatives, moderates, and liberals and we need that diverse perspective to find solutions to serious problems. What we don’t need are ratings whores from both sides who are unconcerned about facts and real solutions.
I don’t want to force Limbaugh or Beck or Oberman off the air. I want the audience to be smart enough to turn them off on their own. That’s a lot more difficult task.
There are extremists on both sides. Giving them too much attention and credibility is part of the problem. Folks who are interested in improving the country as a whole and serving *all *it’s citizens as best we can are interested in listening learning and giving consideration to other ideas. That means liberals really listen to conservatives and conservatives really listen to liberals rather than all the name calling and shouting down. We are in this together and the divisiveness hurts us all.
<snip>
No it isn’t. One poerson is not a representation of how all liberals think. There are conservatives who think Beck and Limbaugh are not helping their cause. Those are the people I want to hear from.
<snip>