The Fairness Doctrine for talk radio...

[Josie]

A liberal talk radio show host said this....


SCHULTZ (initially responding to caller claiming "virtual war" between Democrats and Republicans): It is a cultural war that's taking place in America, you're exactly right. And it's being played out over the airwaves of America. And I hope the Democrats now turn to the Fairness Doctrine. It's time now for the Democrats to consider the Fairness Doctrine when you've got Rush Limbaugh out there saying, it's, we've got to defeat these bastards. He is now openly admitting that he is going to work against and campaign against the Republican, against the Democratic Party and campaign against Obama, and he is motivating people with the microphone and he's electioneering.

Keep on talking, Rushsky! Hell, maybe I'll get on 600 stations too, or how many you own or whatever. The fact is, look, it's not a level playing field when it comes to the audio culture of the country. Ownership has its privileges. When you own, I will be honest, if I owned 500 stations, the Drugster wouldn't be on any of 'em. And that's just where it's at right now. But maybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience.


Do you agree with Schultz that Congress needs to ensure that there are an equal number of liberal and conservative shows on the radio?

 

[samsmart]

While I don't listen to conservative talk radio, I am against the Fairness Doctrine. People are going to be sheep no matter what the government tries to do to get them to at least consider the other side. Besides, I don't want such a doctrine to creep into television or blogs. You can't force a mind to be opened to things.

 

[rathi]

The fairness doctrine is absurd. I no reason to have an equal number of mind-numbingly partisan liberal radio shows as conservative ones. The 1st amendment prohibits such BS anyways, but its a stupid idea even if it was legal.

 

[samsmart]

The fairness doctrine is absurd. I no reason to have an equal number of mind-numbingly partisan liberal radio shows as conservative ones. The 1st amendment prohibits such BS anyways, but its a stupid idea even if it was legal.

Besides, if it was put into place, I'd demand that we also get the Libertarian view, the Minarchist view, the Anarchist view, the Green view, the Socialist view, the Democratic Socialist view, the Socialist Democratic view, the Christian Socialist view, the Christian Democratic view, the Progressive view, and the Modern Whig view to make sure we cover all of our political bases.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Do you agree with Schultz that Congress needs to ensure that there are an equal number of liberal and conservative shows on the radio?

I don't like anybody's talk radio, nor am I a fan of the fairness doctrine.

That said, neither side is serious about employing the fairness doctrine, not at the level where these kinds of decisions are actually made. One side raises it to get hear-hears from their audience, the other side raises it to whip their audience into a frenzy.

The Supreme Court would never stand for it.

EOT

 

[ScottD]

Fairness Doctrine is crap, and a lot of Democratic leaders are against it anyways, including Obama, who has said he is against the fairness doctrine.

Maybe Ed Shultz should just fund some left-wing radio programming himself. I'd be willing to host a show or two if he needs the help, but I don't think the fairness doctrine is a good answer to this issue.

 

[Moon]

A liberal talk radio show host said this....


SCHULTZ (initially responding to caller claiming "virtual war" between Democrats and Republicans): It is a cultural war that's taking place in America, you're exactly right. And it's being played out over the airwaves of America. And I hope the Democrats now turn to the Fairness Doctrine. It's time now for the Democrats to consider the Fairness Doctrine when you've got Rush Limbaugh out there saying, it's, we've got to defeat these bastards. He is now openly admitting that he is going to work against and campaign against the Republican, against the Democratic Party and campaign against Obama, and he is motivating people with the microphone and he's electioneering.

Keep on talking, Rushsky! Hell, maybe I'll get on 600 stations too, or how many you own or whatever. The fact is, look, it's not a level playing field when it comes to the audio culture of the country. Ownership has its privileges. When you own, I will be honest, if I owned 500 stations, the Drugster wouldn't be on any of 'em. And that's just where it's at right now. But maybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience.


Do you agree with Schultz that Congress needs to ensure that there are an equal number of liberal and conservative shows on the radio?

Schultz doesn't want fairness, he just wants to shut down the competition so more people hear his message. In other words, he's a hypocrite.

 

[Councilman]

There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine in any way.

This Fairness Doctrine if used will be just like Hugo Chavez shutting opposition radio stations.

Liberals have failed at Talk Radio because they have nothing to say that most of the public want to hear.

This was the reason Air America was such a miserable failure.

The numbers are not their for Liberal Talk Shows with the majority of the people identifying themselves as being politically middle right not left politically.

Having been in Radio I can tell you that most good Conservative Hosts love it when Liberals call in because they tend to make the case for their own opposition because they are way out there and out of touch with reality.

Liberals have a problem whent they are forced to think for themselves and are not allowed to run off at the mouth and end up making wildly inaccurate statements of just resort to name calling. We that here all the time.

Obama would like nothing more than to shut down all Conservatives because his Socialist/Marxist doctrine would replace what is so popular.

I believe this would put another nail in the political coffin of the liberals and is a big chance to take for no real gain.

Every totalitarian Government and dictatorship in history knows the best way to spread unanswered propaganda is to shut up any and all opposition.

Obama already has all but the FOX News channel in his pocket speardin g propaganda and not reporting the facts about Obama's constant lies.

Now he would like nothing better than to shut us up and he put in place people who will do it for him even if he says he opposes it. He's done it on other issues why not this one.

Ed Schultz is an idiot and lucky he's about the only game in town for Liberals so they either listen to him or their wacky Rap Crap or something.

Amazingly enough a few years ago Rush Limbaugh's audience was made up or over 30% liberals because they wanted to hear what he had to say so they could either ridicule him or call him names because of his views.

Personally I never liked the pompous ass but many do. After all he will tell you what to think, and he does warn you about it.

 

[Chappy]

What is this thing called ‘radio’ ?

 

[samsmart]

What is this thing called ‘radio’ ?

It's like tv but without the pictures.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Besides, if it was put into place, I'd demand that we also get the Libertarian view, the Minarchist view, the Anarchist view, the Green view, the Socialist view, the Democratic Socialist view, the Socialist Democratic view, the Christian Socialist view, the Christian Democratic view, the Progressive view, and the Modern Whig view to make sure we cover all of our political bases.

Great minds and all that.

Ohh I can imagine to legal proceedings after that fiasco.

 

[Councilman]

What is this thing called ‘radio’ ?

It's like tv but without the pictures.

Radio is this new fangled idea that goes back to the first licensed "commercial" radio station in the U.S. was KDKA on November 2, 1920.

It's come a long way since then News and Talk goes way back but didn't really take off until about 25 years ago.

News and Talk is more highly rated than any other format and it is for the most part a result of Conservative programing.

There a couple of stations like KGO in San Francisco that have been able to stay a float but not many. KGO first went on the air in 1924 as a music station and remained that until the early 60s when they went with pretty much the format they use today.

In the old days stations could put out 100,000 watts of power but that has been cut down to 50,000 to allow more stations to broadcast without bleed over from the power house stations in nearby towns with 100 miles.

Mexico still allows 100,000 watt stations and can be heard half way to Canada on a clear cool evening.

Just a tiny bit of trivia for those who don't know radio.

One more thing. In a single week, radio reaches more than 228 million Americans. That's 94 percent of everyone age 12 and older, according to Arbitron. Not bad for an unknown media.

 

[ScottD]

One more thing. In a single week, radio reaches more than 228 million Americans. That's 94 percent of everyone age 12 and older, according to Arbitron. Not bad for an unknown media.

Most of that is probably people listening to it in cars or at work. If you were to ask most of those people what their primary source of information was, you would not be told Radio Talk Shows.

 

[Councilman]

Most of that is probably people listening to it in cars or at work. If you were to ask most of those people what their primary source of information was, you would not be told Radio Talk Shows.

The thing is this music is background entertainment and people research shows they have it playing but are not really tuned in to it most of the time, whereas Talk Radio is a foreground Media and people pay attention because they want to hear what is being said. That also makes the Commercials on talk radio more effective because people are tuned in to listen to plain speech.

Most listening does take place for adults in cars during drive times of the morning and late after noon. You got that right.

Some people like to listen to their favorites for as long as they are on at home or even work. And they learn from it.

 

[Grim17]

That said, neither side is serious about employing the fairness doctrine...

Neither side?

When have republicans ever been advocates of the Fairness Doctrine? It's the democrats that have always played fast and loose with the First Amendment by supporting crap like this, not republicans.

.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Liberals have failed at Talk Radio because they have nothing to say that most of the public want to hear.

Personally I think it is because they try the same angry approach conservative hosts do, and it doesn't ring true with the audience.

In other words, they haven't found the right combination of talent and format.

This was the reason Air America was such a miserable failure.

The numbers are not their for Liberal Talk Shows with the majority of the people identifying themselves as being politically middle right not left politically.

It's all too easy to self-identify as middle-right when the right-wing guys tell you that they're all about freedom, and how America is the kind of place where you can start with nothing and work your way up to having anything you want.

It's not true, of course, but it sounds like it is when they preach it.

Then they turn around and belch hate and fear and jingoism, three chief enemies of the freedom they tell you they're all about.

Having been in Radio I can tell you that most good Conservative Hosts love it when Liberals call in because they tend to make the case for their own opposition because they are way out there and out of touch with reality.

You call those people Liberals? Where I'm from, we call them ringers. :lol:

Liberals have a problem whent they are forced to think for themselves and are not allowed to run off at the mouth and end up making wildly inaccurate statements of just resort to name calling. We that here all the time.

I've heard plenty of inaccurate statements come out of the mouths of "conservative" hosts. I've also noticed on several occasions how they have a tendency to change their stated opinions, sometimes 180 degrees, to better fit the current political climate -- all while claiming that has been their stated position their whole career.

Obama would like nothing more than to shut down all Conservatives because his Socialist/Marxist doctrine would replace what is so popular.

So I guess you missed where he's opposed implementation of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Obama already has all but the FOX News channel in his pocket speardin g propaganda and not reporting the facts about Obama's constant lies.

Unlike Fox . . . oh wait, they've been caught lying a bunch of times, too. Plus the fact that their "news" is heavily outweighed by their opinion-based programming. The hosts of which are featured right alongside their newscasters when they tell you that they report and you decide.

Nevermind.

Now he would like nothing better than to shut us up and he put in place people who will do it for him even if he says he opposes it. He's done it on other issues why not this one.

Because he's said on multiple occasions that he wouldn't.

Because he knows the Supreme Court wouldn't stand for it.

Because he has no interest in doubling or tripling Fox News' audience.

Amazingly enough a few years ago Rush Limbaugh's audience was made up or over 30% liberals because they wanted to hear what he had to say so they could either ridicule him or call him names because of his views.

Howard Stern also had a hostile following of his own before he went satellite. That's no especial distinction.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Neither side?

When have republicans ever been advocates of the Fairness Doctrine? It's the democrats that have always played fast and loose with the First Amendment by supporting crap like this, not republicans.

.

That's right, neither side.

The Democrats who talk about employing the Fairness Doctrine aren't serious about their argument, and the Republicans who rail against employing it aren't serious about their argument.

So, as I said before:

That said, neither side is serious about employing the fairness doctrine, not at the level where these kinds of decisions are actually made. One side raises it to get hear-hears from their audience, the other side raises it to whip their audience into a frenzy.

 

[lizzie]

Do you agree with Schultz that Congress needs to ensure that there are an equal number of liberal and conservative shows on the radio?

Absolutely not, and I find it fascinating that he/she (sorry, I'm not familiar with Schultz) spews vitriolic opinion, while being outraged at conservative radio. What it amounts to is a free speech issue, and if conservatism sells, and liberalism does not, regulation will not equalize opinion. It sells, and the federal government probably makes alot of money off the profits of conservative talk radio.

 

[Barbbtx]

Obama is FOR reinstating the fairness doctrine, however he calls it "localization and diversity" or something similar. Anyway, it's all about shutting up conservatives, even though there's nothing stopping liberals from having just as many talk shows as conservatives. Well,... except that little bankruptsy thing that always seems to happen when they try. It seems you need an audience to stay in business.
It's just a shame they can't be happy with dominating almost all forms of the media and they have to come after talk radio. They only believe in free speech if someone is parroting their own views.

 

[liblady]

nope.

10 char

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Obama is FOR reinstating the fairness doctrine

He's said the exact opposite.

Anyway, it's all about shutting up conservatives

He's said the exact opposite.

 

[Mach]

Do you agree with Schultz that Congress needs to ensure that there are an equal number of liberal and conservative shows on the radio?

No.

I also don't understand why it would be liberal and conservative only. We'd need to add a whole host of other topics to be "fair". Basically any sufficiently different political movement, i.e. so many it's absurd in yet another way. May as well have atheist channels to oppose all the christian talk radio? Some Muslims ones? Communist talk radio, socialist-lite, socialist-heavy, EU-defined-socialism (not socialism)...on so on.

Why would liberals propose government competition to what people are freely choosing in the free market? Let me guess. Liberals want:
1. more government involvement in the free market, even in cases where people are able to express choice.
2. How are we going to pay for that new enforcement anyway? Let me guess.

 

[LODI]

Well since liberals control media we don't need a fairness doctrine for talk radio.