How Fair Is It?

[Alien Allen]

Tim,

Radio stations play what sells. If liberal talk shows were what people wanted they would be on the air. You can spin it anyway you like but it is in the end censorship.

A better approach would be to find a way to not have so few corporations own so many stations. That was something which used to be in place. Now as you say we have a handful of corporations owning the vast majority of stations. In Detroit we had one talk radio station that had almost all local personalities. They decided they were not getting enough listeners so they went to syndication to cut costs. They lost me as a listener and I am sure plenty of others. So I suspect they will change again. As they did initially when they went from talk radio to sports talk. The listeners drive the market.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Ok, so far there have been 37 posts in this thread and still no one has got it right....

Let your liberal friend help you out.

The possibility of bringing back the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with censorship. It has everything to do with giving the public a choice of views to listen to. Let me explain. First of all this would ONLY effect radio stations (AM & FM) because these airways belong to the PEOPLE and the radio stations are granted FREE licenses to broadcast on them. So in return, they are supposed to serve the public.
Here's the problem. Over the last 20 years or so we have gone from tens of thousands of radio station owners to about 4. They have been bought up by the major media outlets who also own the papers and TV stations. This can lead to market control like we have here in Philadelphia. Now Philadelphia is about as liberal as it gets, I think they ran out the last conservative family in the last election, yet there are ZERO liberal talk radio stations on the air. I can tune into Rush on 5 different AM stations every day. It's the same thing in Washington, Seattle and several other liberal cities. And the argument of progressive radio stations not being able to make money, well that has been debunked years ago and now it's just a talking point.

So to sum it up. The radio waves belong to the people, the radio stations are able to broadcast for free on these public airwaves in return for serving the public. But it doesn't serve the public if you own all the stations in a given market and only broadcast your side not allowing opposing views.

See, you've already been brainwashed:ninja


*Puts on Kool aid resistant lab coat*

 

[Tim]

Tim,

Radio stations play what sells. If liberal talk shows were what people wanted they would be on the air. You can spin it anyway you like but it is in the end censorship.

A better approach would be to find a way to not have so few corporations own so many stations. That was something which used to be in place. Now as you say we have a handful of corporations owning the vast majority of stations. In Detroit we had one talk radio station that had almost all local personalities. They decided they were not getting enough listeners so they went to syndication to cut costs. They lost me as a listener and I am sure plenty of others. So I suspect they will change again. As they did initially when they went from talk radio to sports talk. The listeners drive the market.

So can you really say that there is no market for progressive radio (not even 1 station) in Washington where democrats outnumber republicans 10 to 1?

This is a perfect example of why that argument doesn't work.






I'm personally against the censorship of any radio station. But I think it's VERY UNHEALTHY for single companies to control all the media that goes into a given area. That's where I have a problem. And I don't care if they are dem/rep or libertarian... no one should have control of the media.

 

[Alien Allen]

So can you really say that there is no market for progressive radio (not even 1 station) in Washington where democrats outnumber republicans 10 to 1?

This is a perfect example of why that argument doesn't work.






I'm personally against the censorship of any radio station. But I think it's VERY UNHEALTHY for single companies to control all the media that goes into a given area. That's where I have a problem. And I don't care if they are dem/rep or libertarian... no one should have control of the media.

remove companies and insert parties, remove media and insert govt. and we might have something to agree on.

Radio stations are in the business to make money. Yeah that good old greed money is what drives their decisions. Used to be very little talk radio. But then it was found out people liked the call in shows. We had Tom Lykus on here syndicated locally years ago. They did not dump him because of his politics. They dumped him because there were not enough listeners.

 

[Tim]

But you forget one very important part to this. Radio stations broadcast on PUBLIC airways and they are required to serve the public upon receipt of their broadcasting license. They CANNOT do anything they like to make a buck. They are required to follow simple guidelines.
If it doesn't serve the public, then they are in breach of their contract. It does not serve the public to have Rush on 5 stations here in Philadelphia and zero opposing points of view. And how can you even think that makes good business sense when you aren't capturing the whole market? A good businessman would capture the conservative AND progressive audience to maximize their advertising revenue. Especially when Philadelphia is a major liberal city... It just doesn't make sense....

 

[Alien Allen]

It does not make sense because you don't want it to make sense. Clearly all 5 stations are getting enough listeners to keep him on the air. Must drive ya nuts at the thought of that.

I get your point about how can it happen but it does. Come up with a better product and I guarantee you they will be on the air. I am not defending the guy. He and Hannity are jerks. They have some good points at times but go overboard that makes em look silly.

So what is your solution then. Only have one station in town carry him? What if the station does not cover other outlying parts of the city due to weak signal strength.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Bottom line is this Tim, the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee an opposing view, only protect the right to do it.

In no way should a radio station be told "Go out and find an opposing view right now...even if your listeners have proven they don't want one"

That's crap, my guess is Rush became popular because people WANT to listen to him, now I can't ficgure out why they do, but they do.

And I promise you those who listen to him, are not looking for the lefts opinion on what he says.

 

[Tim]

My solution would be to break up any media monopolies. I would make it where one company cannot own all of the media in one given market... (why is this any different that Ma Bell being the only phone company in an area?) or if they did, then they need to mix up the programming. I have no problem with Rush and Sean being on the air here. I just want the availability to hear other views without them being shut out.
Once again, you have to remember that these are public airways. If you start up a company to serve the public using public resources, then don't cry when the government tells you that you need to actually serve the public. Because if you have a problem with them telling you that, then you should have started a private company (in this case it would be cable TV, Satellite radio, publications, etc.)

 

[Tim]

Bottom line is this Tim, the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee an opposing view, only protect the right to do it.

In no way should a radio station be told "Go out and find an opposing view right now...even if your listeners have proven they don't want one"

That's crap, my guess is Rush became popular because people WANT to listen to him, now I can't ficgure out why they do, but they do.

And I promise you those who listen to him, are not looking for the lefts opinion on what he says.

How would you see this as a violation of the first amendment? They wouldn't tell radio station what they can and cannot air. But they would tell a company that you cannot own every radio station in a given area and control the message, not when you were granted the license to broadcast for free on the publicly owned airways. When you get that license, it comes with strings, you MUST serve the public. And if you cannot do that, then you should have never applied for the license to begin with.

This can be applied to your industry Evan. If you get a contract to drill on public lands you can't turn around and bitch that the government is requiring you to serve the public by cleaning up after yourself. You knew the requirements when you signed the deal. Right?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

How would you see this as a violation of the first amendment? They wouldn't tell radio station what they can and cannot air. But they would tell a company that you cannot own every radio station in a given area and control the message, not when you were granted the license to broadcast for free on the publicly owned airways. When you get that license, it comes with strings, you MUST serve the public. And if you cannot do that, then you should have never applied for the license to begin with.

This can be applied to your industry Evan. If you get a contract to drill on public lands you can't turn around and bitch that the government is requiring you to serve the public by cleaning up after yourself. You knew the requirements when you signed the deal. Right?

What isn't fair is to come running in after the fact and say "Sorry such and such Oil company....But that agreement...well we have decided we are changing it today.....You can't do this"

You say the waves belong to the people, why don't "the people" contest the stations for opposing views, instead of the adminnistration doing it?

 

[Tim]

What isn't fair is to come running in after the fact and say "Sorry such and such Oil company....But that agreement...well we have decided we are changing it today.....You can't do this"

You say the waves belong to the people, why don't "the people" contest the stations for opposing views, instead of the adminnistration doing it?

It's not after the fact, this has always been the policy.

And it is the people speaking up. People like me go to my congressman and ask to have something done about it, and the likely hood of them hearing us went up with the change of administration.

What's so wrong with breaking up the monopolies and letting other companies get into the mix. That alone would fix the problem since more competition brings more diversity.

 

[Tim]

There is something wrong with the system when I get a hold of the same office if I would call to complain about 5 different radio stations in my market. That's a monopoly of the airwaves.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

There is something wrong with the system when I get a hold of the same office if I would call to complain about 5 different radio stations in my market. That's a monopoly of the airwaves.

Curious...Are those the same color as St. James Place:ninja



:24:


Sorry Tim...COuldn't help myself

 

[Tim]

Curious...Are those the same color as St. James Place:ninja



:24:


Sorry Tim...COuldn't help myself

No, no, think much cheaper... think purple like Mediterranean Avenue

 

[Minor Axis]

because they want to restore it. It would require stations to have more balanced programming. With the possibility of equal time. Do you think the govt should be able to control radio content?

Since when is equal time controlling content? The most outrageous Limbaugh statements would continue to gush forth. And since when is a "balanced view" bad? No one is talking about shutting down Fox News are they? I guess I'd need to see more of the details.

 

[Minor Axis]

What's so wrong with breaking up the monopolies and letting other companies get into the mix. That alone would fix the problem since more competition brings more diversity.

I have no problem with breaking up monopolies, but is that what the fairness doctrine is about? I thought it was more of a requirement to allow opposing views. This is something that Fox News would be scared of.

 

[Maulds]

Why is it always Fox News that gets singled out? Has no one seen MSNBC?

 

[Hoffa]

The fairness doctrine is ...dead . Its not going to fly again , and the rightwing are just blowing air.
They like to believe they are being persecuted :willy_nilly:,,, so let Rush convince them . :nod: >f

 

[Ryder]

Someone explain this docterne to me slowly please.

 

[Alien Allen]

The fairness doctrine is ...dead . Its not going to fly again , and the rightwing are just blowing air.
They like to believe they are being persecuted :willy_nilly:,,, so let Rush convince them . :nod: >f

It is about as dead as card check :nod:

Both are top priorities for the left. :nod:

All the FEC has to do is to say the word and the Fairness Doctrine is back in place :nod:

This time the SC might nuke it though

One has to ask why the left is so intent on getting this enacted and or put in place.