OPINION: Why not ban talk radio?

[Barbbtx]

There's no legal way to shut it down, nor should there be. You can't go after talk radio just because you don't like what some of the folk are saying.

It was done before with the fairness doctrine. Some like Pelosi, Hillary, Bill Clinton. Stabenow, just to name the ones I know of want to bring it back only under a different name. Something like the diversity and localization act. Sounds innocent enough but so does the "fairness" doctrine.

 

[Geo Patric]

All I can say is, freedom of speech is a real beech if you a progressive.

yep... here we go... another conservative taking credit for what liberals do.

the bill of rights was a LIBERAL amendmnent to the constitution. every free speech issue has been adjudicated by liberal justices with the sound of wailing and gnashing of conservatives teeth heard in the background.

it can only be considered a conservative issue in having been established and once established, conserved.

geo.

 

[liblady]

It was done before with the fairness doctrine. Some like Pelosi, Hillary, Bill Clinton. Stabenow, just to name the ones I know of want to bring it back only under a different name. Something like the diversity and localization act. Sounds innocent enough but so does the "fairness" doctrine.

i don't remember , who was taken off the air?

 

[Grim17]

yep... here we go... another conservative taking credit for what liberals do.

the bill of rights was a LIBERAL amendmnent to the constitution. every free speech issue has been adjudicated by liberal justices with the sound of wailing and gnashing of conservatives teeth heard in the background.

it can only be considered a conservative issue in having been established and once established, conserved.

geo.

Really? When was it again that conservatives tried to get liberal talk radio banned?

 

[Harshaw]

the bill of rights was a LIBERAL amendmnent to the constitution. every free speech issue has been adjudicated by liberal justices with the sound of wailing and gnashing of conservatives teeth heard in the background.

There is a whole gunnysack full of historical wrongness to this claim.

 

[Barbbtx]

i don't remember , who was taken off the air?

It was in play in the 1940's until 1985? by the FCC. They decided there was no longer a need for it but Congress wanted to keep it. Reagan vetoed them. It was again brought up and was vetoed by Bush.
It was a doctrine that demanded a balance of points of views. Today that would mean that if hannity had a conservative caller he would have to give equal time to a liberal. If there was a conservative talk show there would have to be a liberal one to balance it. If you had a Dem. politition on then you'd have to have a Rep. then the libertarian would also need their time. It would all be such a mess with fines and such everyone would be constantly afraid to say anything political and all radio would go to local news and recipe sharing. No need to take them off the air. They would all fail or leave on their own.
Sorry, I can't put in a link but if you google Fairness doctrine you can find out what it was.

 

[liblady]

i know all about the fairness doctrine, thanks very much. i was responding to what you mentioned in your post, that it was done before. to whom?

Originally Posted by Ikari
There's no legal way to shut it down, nor should there be. You can't go after talk radio just because you don't like what some of the folk are saying.

It was done before with the fairness doctrine. Some like Pelosi, Hillary, Bill Clinton. Stabenow, just to name the ones I know of want to bring it back only under a different name. Something like the diversity and localization act. Sounds innocent enough but so does the "fairness" doctrine.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

2. Public airwaves are free radio and free TV (not cable or internet transmissions). Radio is dominated by the conservative viewpoint, just as TV is dominated by the liberal perspective. The Liberals answer to conservative talk is to have them taken off the air or silenced through legislation.... While conservatives simply want more balance on public TV and have never advocated for ABC, NBC or CBS to be taken off the air or silenced by legislation.

Emphasis mine.

It's interesting that you put it that way, Grim17, because that sounds an awful lot like the fairness doctrine.

I seem to recall that the conservative response to any such policy was that liberal talk show hosts tended to bomb -- in other words, that the reason the weren't carried was because by and large they were unprofitable, and that the government shouldn't force broadcasters to carry unprofitable programming just to maintain the illusion of fairness.

How is what you said any different than the standard liberal argument?


TED,
Not a fairness of the fairness doctrine, FWIW.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It was done before with the fairness doctrine. Some like Pelosi, Hillary, Bill Clinton. Stabenow, just to name the ones I know of want to bring it back only under a different name. Something like the diversity and localization act. Sounds innocent enough but so does the "fairness" doctrine.

Yes, quite often the most nefarious of schemes go by a name that sounds the exact opposite of what they really are. The unfair "fairness" doctrine, and the unconstitutional "patriot" act are two. Still, who is trying to bring back the fairness doctrine? The only place I've heard that phrase at all is on talk radio, usually in a rant about what "liberals' want to do.

Is there really anyone who advocates the fairness doctrine and has a reasonable chance of bringing it back?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, quite often the most nefarious of schemes go by a name that sounds the exact opposite of what they really are. The unfair "fairness" doctrine, and the unconstitutional "patriot" act are two. Still, who is trying to bring back the fairness doctrine? The only place I've heard that phrase at all is on talk radio, usually in a rant about what "liberals' want to do.

Is there really anyone who advocates the fairness doctrine and has a reasonable chance of bringing it back?

Yep. I am pretty much convinced that the paranoia about people who want to ban this or that are pretty much just the fantasy of a paranoid mind.

 

[Grim17]

Emphasis mine.

It's interesting that you put it that way, Grim17, because that sounds an awful lot like the fairness doctrine.

I seem to recall that the conservative response to any such policy was that liberal talk show hosts tended to bomb -- in other words, that the reason the weren't carried was because by and large they were unprofitable, and that the government shouldn't force broadcasters to carry unprofitable programming just to maintain the illusion of fairness.

How is what you said any different than the standard liberal argument?


TED,
Not a fairness of the fairness doctrine, FWIW.

Wanting the big 3 to present their news in a more fair and bi-partisan manner, is nothing like the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are not using legislation or strong arm tactics, just their voices. The Fairness Doctrine is a legislative maneuver that does not promote fairness, but instead uses intimidation to silence conservative voices by threatening fines and the revocation of broadcasting licenses by the government, if they aren't satisfied that stations are in compliance.

 

[Geo Patric]

There is a whole gunnysack full of historical wrongness to this claim.

Liberalism has a long and fascinating history and one we might truly enjoy exploring. Liberalism is the pursuit of Liberty, so it should come as no surprise that those folks that were promoting an independent nation on this continent were defined as Liberals and the ideas they were promoting were liberal ideas.

and a conservative? is, by definition, one whose purpose is to avoid change. conserve means to protect and to maintain, implicitly, without change. ANY significant free speech ruling has been to extend expression beyond the restrictions in place a the time, definitely a form of political change and definitely one that can be considered liberal.

of course, if you would like, we can exchange examples. you show how a recognized conservative has extended the premise of 'free expression' and i will try to match it. how fun!

hint: do not start with Ronald Reagan... that would be a bad choice.

geo.

 

[Coronado]

Conservatives are not using legislation or strong arm tactics, just their voices. The Fairness Doctrine is a legislative maneuver that does not promote fairness, but instead uses intimidation to silence conservative voices by threatening fines and the revocation of broadcasting licenses by the government, if they aren't satisfied that stations are in compliance.

Kinda like what conservatives do when someone shows a nipple on television. OH THE HORROR!!

 

[jallman]

"Disagree? With Obama? That should not be allowed" stated a member of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as he stirred his martini at a local gay bar. When I asked him why we cannot disagree with Obama, he blew a gasket:

There was your first mistake. You were having a bargument with a liquored up, agenda driven homo on his own turf.

 

[Coronado]

Liberalism has a long and fascinating history and one we might truly enjoy exploring. Liberalism is the pursuit of Liberty, so it should come as no surprise that those folks that were promoting an independent nation on this continent were defined as Liberals and the ideas they were promoting were liberal ideas.

and a conservative? is, by definition, one whose purpose is to avoid change. conserve means to protect and to maintain, implicitly, without change. ANY significant free speech ruling has been to extend expression beyond the restrictions in place a the time, definitely a form of political change and definitely one that can be considered liberal.

of course, if you would like, we can exchange examples. you show how a recognized conservative has extended the premise of 'free expression' and i will try to match it. how fun!

hint: do not start with Ronald Reagan... that would be a bad choice.

geo.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are impossible to compare across different times and in different cultures. Attempting to do so is either an exercise in deception or a display of historical and political ignorance.

 

[jallman]

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are impossible to compare across different times and in different cultures. Attempting to do so is either an exercise in deception or a display of historical and political ignorance.

Exactly. You only need to look as far back as the civil rights movement to see the flip-flop in the two parties and how liberalism and convervativism also made evolutions with the change in dynamic.

But don't let shallow and lazy analysis get in the way of one of Geo's rants. :shrug:

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Wanting the big 3 to present their news in a more fair and bi-partisan manner, is nothing like the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are not using legislation or strong arm tactics, just their voices. The Fairness Doctrine is a legislative maneuver that does not promote fairness, but instead uses intimidation to silence conservative voices by threatening fines and the revocation of broadcasting licenses by the government, if they aren't satisfied that stations are in compliance.

Thank you for the clarification.

It's great to want things (and, to be clear, I'd love to see news broadcasts that were actual news), but simply wanting things never gets anything done.

So, what's the plan, aside from complaining and being ignored?

 

[Grim17]

Thank you for the clarification.

It's great to want things (and, to be clear, I'd love to see news broadcasts that were actual news), but simply wanting things never gets anything done.

So, what's the plan, aside from complaining and being ignored?

We live in a free society. You can not force the networks to start reporting all the news, and to do so in a non-partisan way. They are free to report on it in the slanted way they do, and all we can do is voice our displeasure, and stop buying their product... Which we have been doing. Look at the huge decline TV viewership and newspaper circulation if you don't believe me.

Conservatives respect America and what it was founded on. We don't try and circumvent the constitution and the bill of rights (like other I know) just because we disagree with what is said in the media.

 

[Geo Patric]

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are impossible to compare across different times and in different cultures. Attempting to do so is either an exercise in deception or a display of historical and political ignorance.

no, they aren't. the terms mean precisely what they have always meant.

we tend to apply the terms to political parties and political parties change, to be sure, but the words mean what they mean. we may misuse them, but THAT doesn't change what the words mean either.

lincoln was a republican and yes, we tend to think republicans conservative. but they were not always. the early republicans were in fact quite liberal in their thinking as perceived by the more conservative whigs. and one may want to 'conserve' some things while extend greater freedom in others, so to use one term or the other to absolutely qualify a thinking person is probably going to be at least a little inaccruate. but, to qualifiy certain ideas as liberal or illiberal is perfectly valid now, then, tomorrow. WHICH ideas we think liberal may change, but liberalism as an ideology that attempts to extend liberty is still what liberalism means.

geo.

 

[Harshaw]

Liberalism has a long and fascinating history and one we might truly enjoy exploring.

I think you would be better not presuming that such a study hasn't already been undertaken.

Liberalism is the pursuit of Liberty, so it should come as no surprise that those folks that were promoting an independent nation on this continent were defined as Liberals and the ideas they were promoting were liberal ideas.

Soitenly. And they're often vilified by today's "liberals." Especially when their dead white guy ideas in that pesky ol' Constitution get in the way of their statist ends.

I particularly enjoyed noted liberal Nancy Pelosi's response to the question of what power in the Constitution gave Congress the authority to require everyone to purchase health insurance: "ARE YOU SERIOUS?"

That was certainly in keeping with the liberals who founded this nation and enshrined a constitution of enumerated powers. Sure.

and a conservative? is, by definition, one whose purpose is to avoid change. conserve means to protect and to maintain, implicitly, without change.

Which today includes limiting the power of government, which is what those old white guy liberals wanted to do, in the face of new statist liberals who want it ever to expand.

ANY significant free speech ruling has been to extend expression beyond the restrictions in place a the time, definitely a form of political change and definitely one that can be considered liberal.

I see. So anyone who actually acted in favor of free speech is by definition "liberal," so you've set it up so it's impossible to be wrong. Of course, it means equivocating on definitions, just as others have said, but hey.

of course, if you would like, we can exchange examples. you show how a recognized conservative has extended the premise of 'free expression' and i will try to match it. how fun!

Here's one that'll twist you into knots -- seems to me the "recognized conservatives" on the Supreme Court expanded the free speech of those free associations we know as "corporations," much to the very loud, very screechy chagrin of your "liberals."

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

We live in a free society. You can not force the networks to start reporting all the news, and to do so in a non-partisan way. They are free to report on it in the slanted way they do, and all we can do is voice our displeasure, and stop buying their product...

Okay.

Which we have been doing. Look at the huge decline TV viewership and newspaper circulation if you don't believe me.

I think you're oversimplifying here. Since we're talking about network television (we are still talking about network television, right?), I can imagine many other causes for a decline in the viewership with respect to their news broadcasts:

• 24-hour news networks like CNN and Fox
• The online presence of these networks
• News aggregates like Google News
• A distinct lack of the personality cultist blowhards like Hannity and Olbermann

((ETA: Also, let's not forget the billion other things there are to watch on television while the networks are doing their token newscasts in the morning and evening.))

So far as it goes with print publications, let's face it -- by and large they're about 5 years behind the curve. Kindle is the #1 selling item on Amazon (last I checked anyway), and yet for some reason publishers seem to be hell-bent for killing as many trees as possible before they go out of business. I'm willing to bet that even those with online presences haven't figured out how to make the switch from paper to electronic delivery effectively.

Conservatives respect America and what it was founded on. We don't try and circumvent the constitution and the bill of rights (like other I know) just because we disagree with what is said in the media.

I think it's safe to say that both major parties have some pretty serious violations of our fundamental rights on their respective resumes.

 

[samsmart]

A friend of mine recently asked me why I listened to Michael Savage, Rush or Hannity. I told him that as a Libertarian I listen to all spectrums (while reading CNN.com, Huffington Post, Daily Kos) to build an informed opinion.

He then opined that talk radio "was all about hate" and "should be banned".

I asked him why and he said that since the talkers on the right are anti-Obama they should be arrested, jailed, banned and all right-wing talk radio hosts banned and jailed in full order. When I asked what would replace it, my friends stated: "progressives."

Several of my friends in Dallas also mentioned the same thing: *Jail* Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity, shut down "racist" FOX News and "create real change in our nation. True change. Remove the racist, bigoted right wingers."

QUESTION TO THE FORUM: Should right wing talk radio be banned? How would you ban it? Could the Federal Communications Commission carry out the closings? Would this be egalitarian? Would it make America more "tolerant"?

Why would progressives want to silence those they can rally against?

 

[Goshin]

A friend of mine recently asked me why I listened to Michael Savage, Rush or Hannity. I told him that as a Libertarian I listen to all spectrums (while reading CNN.com, Huffington Post, Daily Kos) to build an informed opinion.

He then opined that talk radio "was all about hate" and "should be banned".

I asked him why and he said that since the talkers on the right are anti-Obama they should be arrested, jailed, banned and all right-wing talk radio hosts banned and jailed in full order. When I asked what would replace it, my friends stated: "progressives."

Several of my friends in Dallas also mentioned the same thing: *Jail* Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity, shut down "racist" FOX News and "create real change in our nation. True change. Remove the racist, bigoted right wingers."

QUESTION TO THE FORUM: Should right wing talk radio be banned? How would you ban it? Could the Federal Communications Commission carry out the closings? Would this be egalitarian? Would it make America more "tolerant"?

Gosh, there's that pesky little 1st Amendment thingy ya know....

... very inconvenient to those who'd like to shut up the opposition I'm sure... my heart fair bleeds for them. :roll:

 

[Grim17]

Why would progressives want to silence those they can rally against?

Because they can't beat conservatives in a battle of issues and ideas, so silencing them is all they are left with.

It's been that way for decades.

 

[Coronado]

Because they can't beat conservatives in a battle of issues and ideas, so silencing them is all they are left with.

It's been that way for decades.

And that's why conservatives have controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency for decades.

Oh wait ...