The New FCC "Diversity Czar" - An Enemy of Free Speech

[cosmosdan]

@Captain_Amazing

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.

I’m doing the happy dance.

[Magiver]

@Snowboarder_Bo

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.

They are as much a public commodity as any other frequency and they were regulated. I use to have to have a license to use aviation frequencies at work.

[E-Sabbath]

@cosmosdan

I’m doing the happy dance.

Also doing the happy dance.

[Magiver]

@cosmosdan

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?

Shodan is pointing out that the bias exists and that Presidential power is being exerted to further that bias by focusing policy only on the spectrum least favorable to his views.

[cosmosdan]

@Magiver

Shodan is pointing out that the bias exists and that Presidential power is being exerted to further that bias by focusing policy only on the spectrum least favorable to his views.

Once again, this does not address the apparent contradiction. Care to try again?

[elucidator]

Whats to gain? If the People’s Republic of Obama tried to silence or even trim rightarded radio, they would go totally berserk, flinging poo and setting the furniture on fire. Look how upset they are already, and nothing is happening!

And for all this blood and thunder…what? No minds will be changed, Beck isn’t about changing minds, he’s about positions already held. Limbaugh doesn’t argue, he lies to the choir. Its not like hordes of former liberals are rushing forward to be washed in the Blood of the Dumb, because of the awesome charisma of Mike Medved.

If I were Commissar of the Ministry of Truthiness, I wouldn’t even bother. It would be like letting someone kick you in the nuts in exchange for a pack of gum.

[Magiver]

@cosmosdan

Once again, this does not address the apparent contradiction. Care to try again?

there is no contradiction. If a Republican President tried to invoke the “fairness” doctrine on TV only it would be an attempt at skewing political speech.

[cosmosdan]

@Magiver

there is no contradiction. If a Republican President tried to invoke the “fairness” doctrine on TV only it would be an attempt at skewing political speech.

The contradiction was spelled out in two posts. Try replying to those and give specific reasons why there is no contradiction rather than assertion and irrelevant points.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Magiver

They are as much a public commodity as any other frequency and they were regulated. I use to have to have a license to use aviation frequencies at work.

No, they are not public commodities. And your license to use aviation frequencies is because air space is a public commodity, and thus activities concerned with it.

[elucidator]

"FY 253, you are on a collision…(scritch, crackle)…godless socialist perverts raping our…(scritch, crackle)…I repeat, ascend immediately to…(scritch, crackle)…Obama’s Kenyan sister-in-law, a voodoo priestess,…(scritch, crackle)…everybody die!..

[Yookeroo]

@Captain_Amazing

Calling it a democratic revolution is implying it’s a good thing. “Democracy” is one of those positive buzz words.

And “revolution” is a negative buzzword. Regardless, he was democratically elected. Which is a lot more honest than calling it a…

@Captain_Amazing

Somebody who supports Chavez is going to call his coming to power, “a democratic revolution”, somebody who opposes him, is going to call it, “Chavez’s takeover” or something like that.

…“takeover”. Talk about loaded buzzwords. But it gets worse:

@Captain_Amazing

Again, supporting democracy=good. Trying to overthrow democracy=bad. Somebody who thinks the coup was a good thing,

It’s now a “coup”.

@Captain_Amazing

wouldn’t say “The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media” aided by us, tried to oust him,

Even if that’s the truth.

@Captain_Amazing

He’s set up a narrative here, where you have two sides…the people, and Chavez, representing them, on the one side, and on the other, “the property owners”, and “the folks who control the media” on the other.

But one side of the narrative is more honest than the other side.

@Shodan

There isn’t any contradiction. Conservative talk radio is out-competing NPR and other “progressive” radio, largely because of NPR’s liberal bias,

NPR has no liberal bias.

[Shodan]

@Frylock

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.

There is no contradiction. Liberal views do not succeed, compared to unsubsidized liberal views as exemplified in NPR. That’s why the czar wants further to subsidize NPR and penalize conservative talk radio.

The MSM succeeded before there was any alternative - before there was any diversity in the viewpoints available. As mentioned, Rush Limbaugh came along, saw a large and under-served market, and created competition for the liberal news media. Once that competition began, the MSM began losing share, for that and for other reasons. The czar wants to partially recreate the conditions before competition, by penalizing non-progressive points of view and subsidizing progressive ones.

[ul][li]One side is biased liberal, []that side is losing []Therefore, that side cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, all other things being equal.[/ul]A losing strategy is not validated simply by the fact that one side adopts it. That’s kind of silly. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

[quote=“Shodan, post:132, topic:508606”]

…[ul][li]One side is biased liberal, []that side is losing []Therefore, that side cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, all other things being equal.[/ul]…[/li][/QUOTE]

We lost? Well, now, that is definitely excellent news for the McCain Campaign!

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

There is no contradiction. Liberal views do not succeed, compared to unsubsidized liberal views as exemplified in NPR.

Or perhaps the mindset that considers talk radio (as opposed to news radio, like NPR) to be education rather than entertainment is naturally more susceptible to unquestioningly accepting lies.

[quote]
[list][li]One side is biased liberal, [*]that side is losing[/li][/quote]
As recent electoral results keep showing, huh? Oh, wait, you think Arbitron ratings are what really matter, right? So do Limbaugh and Beck and the rest of the professional entertainers.

A losing strategy is not validated simply by the fact that one side adopts it. That’s kind of silly.

It’s validated by winning where it matters. The idea that that’s radio listenership is more than kind of silly.

[Shodan]

@ElvisL1ves

Or perhaps the mindset that considers talk radio (as opposed to news radio, like NPR) to be education rather than entertainment is naturally more susceptible to unquestioningly accepting lies.

I haven’t seen that. You have, but that may not be because it really happens, but for other reasons.

Simply identifying whatever opinions you agree with as “education” and reflexively labelling the other side as “lies” is pretty stupid but it is hardly unique to liberals.

As recent electoral results keep showing, huh? Oh, wait, you think Arbitron ratings are what really matter, right?

Well, that is what we are talking about.

It’s validated by winning where it matters. The idea that that’s radio listenership is more than kind of silly.

Funny that you participate in a thread about a subject you consider silly.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

Simply identifying whatever opinions you agree with as “education” and reflexively labelling the other side as “lies” is pretty stupid but it is hardly unique to liberals.

Yes, of course, you’re impervious to being shown every one of Limbaugh’s or Beck’s or Coulter’s et al.'s lies, every time they’ve been brought up here, aren’t you? Yawn …

Well, that is what we are talking about.

The claim you made about “winning and losing” in the “marketplace of ideas” was flatly general. The further claim that this marketplace exists only on talk radio, and that results are shown only by its ratings among people with the time and inclination to listen to it, and NOT by elections or even polls of the broader population, is your own entirely. Its silliness is your own problem.

Funny that you participate in a thread about a subject you consider silly.

Not the subject, just your views on it.

[RTFirefly]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

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.

That has no relevance at all. I Love Me wasn’t talking about the typical potatoes-of-the-earth blue collar worker; s/he was talking about people who give a shit about the Fairness Doctrine.