See other Editorial Articles
Title: BLOOD IN THE WATER; Right-wing talk shows next...
Source:
Neal Boortz
URL Source: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Published: Apr 12, 2007
Author: Neal Boortz
Post Date: 2007-04-12 13:59:49 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 3042
Comments: 338
Liberals see this whole Imus situation as a way to rid themselves of the problem of talk radio. Now that they've succeeded in getting MSNBC to pull Imus' program, they'll concentrate on CBS .. trying to get the radio show cancelled. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they succeed. Then they will turn their attention to the rest of us. The tape recorders will be running. There is not one single significant right-of-center radio talk show out there that is not going to come under fire. Liberals know -- they've proven it to themselves -- that they simply cannot succeed in talk radio. So, it's all very simple. If they can't succeed, destroy the genre. Their original plan was to wait until Democrats control the congress and the White House and then murder talk radio with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Now that they're on the verge of having a talk radio scalp on their belts as retribution for a bad and mean-spirited joke, they see that they may not have to wait for the electorate to give them the power. In the meantime... while the race industry is calling for the head of Don Imus, we have Crystal Gail Mangum of North Carolina. Who is she? She is the woman who falsely accused three members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape. Her unsubstantiated charges resulted in a media firestorm against Duke University and these lacrosse players. Would you like to spend a few moments comparing the effect of Mangum's charges on the Duke lacrosse team and Imus' words on the Rutgers woman's basketball team? Sure! Why not! Now, let's see ...... The remainder of the Duke lacrosse season was cancelled. They were nationally ranked, and had to forfeit the rest of their games. The coach, Mike Pressler, resigned. "Mug shots" of the lacrosse players were posted on campus. Mark Anthony Neal, an African Studies professor on the campus said that this was "a case of racialized sexual violence." A Durham, N.C. resident called it "racial terrorism." In the middle of all of this we had a district attorney, Michael Nifong, who was running for reelection in a majority-black jurisdiction. There were suggestions that he wanted to be the mayor one day. Jesse Jackson had plenty to say about this case also. In his column on http://Blacknews.com Jackson said "Predictably, the right-wing media machine has kicked in, prompting mean-spirited attacks upon the accuser's character." Later he offered to pay Mangum's tuition for a college education if her story proved true. Later he amended his promise. In January he said that the Rainbow/Push Coalition would pay her college tuition even if it turns out she completely fabricated her story! Now isn't that special? Hey sisters! How would you like to get a college scholarship from Jesse Jackson? Apparently all you have to do is lodge a false rape accusation against an all-white college sports team! Get out your checkbook, Jesse. Now we have learned that it was a hoax. No truth. The North Carolina Attorney General's office has declared the accused players to be innocent. A State Bar investigation of Nifong continues. And thus far Jesse Jackson has not come forward to offer any comfort to the lacrosse players falsely accused by Ms. Mangum. Now ... why even bring all of this up? Well, we have two college teams in the mix. A Rutgers women's basketball team that is largely black, and a Duke men's lacrosse team that is almost (save for one player) exclusively white. A white man insulted the Rutgers team with a mean-spirited quip. No season cancelled. No coach fired. No arrests. Nobody on the basketball team had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on defense attorneys. They were insulted. The were the targets of a stupid racially charged remark ... but that's pretty much it. But how about Duke? The Duke team members were accused of a crime. Attorneys were hired. Coaches fired. Seasons cancelled. Reputations damaged. DNA swabs were taken. Charges were filed. The district attorney was out there saying that a rape most definitely had occurred. Now we find that they were completely innocent. In the meantime the white man who made the stupid remark about the Rutgers basketball team is being attacked and vilified as if he was a mass murderer. The black woman who made the false charges of rape against the lacrosse team is going to walk. In fact, you can fully expect the civil rights establishment --- the same civil rights establishment that is united in their efforts to destroy Don Imus -- circle the wagons around Crystal Gail Mangum and protect her at all costs. Oprah is going to have the Rutgers woman's basketball team on her show. How many of you would like to make book on when Oprah invites the Duke lacrosse team to be on her show? When pigs fly. Back to talk radio. The mainstream media in this country doesn't merely dislike talk radio, they hate it. Hate it with a blinding passion. How dare these "disc jockeys" get on those radio stations and spout opinions on matters of governance and public policy? Don't they know that this is a job to be left to the professionals at the New York Times and the Washington Post plus the major broadcast TV networks? What's worse, how dare the great unwashed of the general population get on these radio shows, especially the syndicated ones, and spout their ill-advised and uneducated opinions? Think about this. You have a liberal columnist like Maureen Dowd or the insipid Tom Teepen write a column spouting some leftist dogma. That column gets published in newspapers across the country. Then you have some mechanic from Memphis get on the air with Limbaugh or Hannity to offer a differing point of view. The column may be read by a million people -- at the most. The Memphis mechanic is heard by perhaps five times that many. It just ain't right! For years now the left has employed various tactics to marginalize talk radio. The favorite tactic is the tired "hate radio" accusation. The general idea here is that anything said on a talk radio show that is at variance with liberal dogma is "hate speech." This tactic hasn't worked ... and talk radio continues to grow. Well .. now there's a new game plan. Use the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of this world to attack these hosts on the basis of race. That's right .. this whole Imus affair isn't really about race! The TV networks and the liberal mainstream media haven't been hammering this Imus thing day after day after day because they really care about the racial aspects of the story. If they were that concerned about the racial angle they would be playing up the Duke case to a similar extent. Race is the means, not the reason. Right now the mainstream press sees race as the key to destroying talk radio. Focus on the hosts ... wait until they say something that can be racially exploited, and then launch the relentless attack. Go after networks, stations and advertisers. Concentrate on them -- one at a time -- like hyenas looking for a meal. Select prey that looks vulnerable. Isolate that prey and go in for the kill. I don't know how many hosts there are out there who have not made comments about black politicians, celebrities or culture that could be used as the basis for a full force attack. I know I have. Have I gone overboard? You bet! Hell .. 37 years in the business, how can you not have screwed up from time to time? I've apologized in the past -- and probably will one day say something else that merits an apology. Apologies aren't enough, however. The Christian concept of forgiveness and tolerance means nothing to the "reverends" Jackson and Sharpton. They're sharks .. and there's blood in the water. By the way ... my guess? Now that MSNBC has dumped Imus, CBS is sure to follow. Look at it this way .... NBC has canned him. How in the hell can CBS stand up to the this racially charged onslaught? "Hey, CBS! NBC did the right thing? How about you?"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-64) not displayed.
.
.
.
#65. To: Burkeman1 (#63)
By keeping off dissenting views? By refusing to allow rebuttal of unfair attacks? Doing this on the airwaves that I own? On a "Public" license? So that a corporation allied with the government, i.e., Clear Channel, can decide what viewpoints I hear and don't hear? I say if they want to do this sort of thing, let them stand on their own two feet to do it. Cut off their government subsidy. Let them go onto cable or satellite.
.
This habit of repeadly going personal like this doesn't help your position. When you do this time and time again in a predictable fashion -- and you do this -- it just looks like pouting. Go take a deep breath and re-read what is posted above and try to make a rational come back. You already tried silly name calling further up on the thread and I ignored it. Reference your BAC comment above. They second time you tried it, here, I called you on it.
.
It may be censorship.......my concern is finding a leftie that I could enjoy listening to. I AM NOT A LEFTIE....just wanted to make the point that they're every bit as boring and disgusting as the righties. I live in the boondocks of the Rocky Mountains and have been able to get wafting radio waves on occasion. I've tried listening to the lefties out of los angeles and san fran.....and simply can't hack them. And if I had to listen to more than 45 seconds of mario como, I'd be throwing up. I've virtually given up talk radio........hopefully someone can recommend someone legit.
What is wrong with that is that nothing will ever be true. What is wrong with that is that a host will have to re-invent the wheel every time he says something. What is wrong with that is that it will destroy debate, chill people from expressing any opinion that could even remotely be challenged. People will confine themselves to a very narrow range of opinion. A host who says Bush is a liar - is goig to have to defend that every time he says it? He can't go further and or in depth with his views. Can't explore and talk about things that take his assumptions as true. It is STIFLING. Period. People are adults. They don't need the state to tell them what is fair. You may not like it- but there it is. Oh- and then your "application" process to rebut. LOL. I love that. And I am for stifling free speech! What is to stop the state gatekeeper to picking the liberal opinion that he thinks is the dumbest? Or the most idiotic? Or the most similiar to the reichwinger? What else should the state make "Fair" for us? Cause we are to stupid to decide what is fair ourselves.
BAC CLONE, I am tiring of this By keeping off dissenting views? I am not keeping off views. Not for that at all. I am just not for the state determing what is a lie, slander, and basically true and then mandating that an opinion show- give "equal time" to whom they determine was attacked and what needs rebutting. You are essentially for the State determining what is truth. By refusing to allow rebuttal of unfair attacks? Again BAC CLONE. Where have I ever said that? Anyone who is the victim of "unfair" attacks (the "Unfair" part being determined- again- by the state or whatever org you deem is qualified) is free to rebut all he wants. He just doesn't have a right to demand time on an opinion show for him, or a lacky, to rebut it. He can call a press conference and call Rush a liar. And as for Clear Channel being allied with the government- if so- if they are being given public funds- they should be prosecuted and shut down and the government lackies involved sent to jail. I frankly suspect such aid myself. I just don't think reichwinger radio is that popular. But that is beside the point. I am not going to give the power to limit debate in the hands of the government to fight Clear Channel. Your "fairness doctrine" is, again, an invitation to narrow debate than it already is. By the way- if Rush allowed to do satire of public officials? Is he allowed to mock them? Or does that also require "rebuttal" and "equal time". People who tune in to Rush do so because they generally share his opinion and like his humor. What would his show be if he had to watch over his shoulder what would be subject to "rebuttal"? Half his show would be rebuttals.
See- why does it have to be "leftie"? This "fairness" doctine would limit debate in this country to this "right/left" false dichotomy. I am sick of it. It is already firmly entrenched. I don't want to hear the "liberal" rebuttal to Rush. I want to hear the libertarian rebuttal or the anarchist rebuttal or the paleo conservative rebuttal. Those opinions might as well not exist right now anyway as far as our media is concerned. With a "Fairness doctrine" they woud never see the light of the day. With a "Fairness doctrine" there would be no Rush Limbaugh show. There would be no political opinion shows at all. Every political show - on TV and Radio- would resemble "Meet The Press". With A GOPER LIAR and a DEM LIAR "debating" how many angels fit atop a pin point. That is what a "Fainess" doctrine would enshrine.
Depends on if you think payola is illegal as well (paying DJs to play a groups song). I am against censorship but these conglomerates who own these radio stations are in it for the money not for speech rights - anything that threatens their bottom dollar they will ditch. Maybe we should have a law where one station on AM in a market - the low band end that few commercial companies want - gets designated as public space and with no or limited censorship but more speech freedom than a commercial station (the rubes, PC lefty nuts, religious nuts and or Jews might get upset so I can't see no censorship taking hold) like the public access cable channels. I am against censorship in any form. But the REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves. Used to be if you fired a controversial radio guy he could go down the dial to an independent radio station - now where will Imus go to? There are only 3.5 radio owing companies out there and all of them have matching interests and tastes. Satellite radio (if it does not go bankrupt) and web radio are the last bastions of free speech. You want free speech? Or freer speech? Break up the media. A company can only own 2 or 3 radio stations in a market and no television station or newspaper cross ownership - they can't own billboards and they can't own entertainment venues either (like theaters). I am not a libertarian - unfettered market forces will kill you for the right price.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I agree with you, Burke. The Fairness Docterine is useless - it doesn't address the problem in our media - which is limited and cross ownership of media by a handful of fatcat family/corporations - and yes, Fairness Docterine would stifle free speech because it would add yet another bureaucracy of well paid pencil pushing obnoxious gov't silly servant news-balance-checker-nazis. It's not the application of the "Fairness Docterine" that this country needs. It's the application of the anti-trust laws to break up the monopoly that exists today with a small cabal of owners controlling all aspects of our print, television, and radio media. http://www.info rmationclearinghouse.info/article13713.htm "It's time to break up the Media"
The REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves. See my above about breaking up the media crossownership.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Any government subsidy to media at all- in any form- is an assualt on free speech. Government shouldn't even be running public radio= as witness what NPR has become- a faux "balanced" warmonger channel that purports to be the model of the "Fairness doctrine" and yet it is just gubmint propaganda and lies with "Dems" and "GOPERS" debating over minutia and trivia. 80 percent of American media is in the hands of 8 large media conglomerates. What should be done about that? I don't know if anything should be done about it. I do know their "news" is a joke. It is full of lies and these companies rely greatly on the good favor and graces and government and thus toe a two party line. I don't read or watch them for the truth and increasingly fewer Americans do. NBC? CBS? CNN? New York Times? They are losing viewers and readers by the day. I don't think these media conlomerates are the future. But I take your point. In the real world in which government is a reality- perhaps there should be some sort of breakup of big media companies. I generally disfavor such action on the part of government but since the reality is that media sucks up to government since it has regulatory power- it is more than a little dangerous to have the media is so few hands. So if gubmint is going to be involved in media by way of regulations- it should have the power to break up the larger companies.
A "Fairness Doctrine" would please liberal believers in the two party fraud in that all these silly reichwinger talk programs wouldn't exist. But- what would replace them? Basically more "civilized" and "serious" "Meet the Press" type programs that have your standard Beltway approved "Liberal" and standard beltway approved "conservative" "debating" nothing fraud issues. The "issue" on Iraq would be what it is today- body armor for the troops, who loves the troops more, who wants to take care of the troops, and who is for killing more dirty moslems? That is the "Debate" the "fairness Doctrine" would bring. Or- Rush wouldn't go off the air- he would just hire some limp wristed setup "liberal" to provide the "balance"- like Alan Colmes supposedly does on Hannity's program. LOL! The problem with a "Fairness doctrine" is that it can so easily be abused and manipulated and used to control and stifle opinion to almost nothing- to fake absurd positions. Now- I am not blind to the possibility that Clear Channel and the goobermint are in cahoots and that it is curious how this reichwinger radio stays on the air despite how effing sad it is- but a "Fairness doctrine"- while it may "feel good" to get to the likes of Rush off the air- would do nothing to address the lack of debate in this country and the freedom of the press. It would hand gubmint the tools to control the range of opinion.
You know what a "Fairness Doctrine" would look like? Imagine a talk show host saying that Bush lied when he said that AQ and Iraq "worked together" then having to give "equal time" to the likes of a BAC to spew his Newsmax lies and silly juvenile illogical pettifogging nittery. It wouldn't matter if this host exposed this BAC's lies in the past- he would have to be given a platform to repeat his same tired old refuted 1000 times lies from his silly dopey reichwinger rag sheets every time the host said Bush lied about Iraq and AQ ties. Where could a host go with that? He could never get anywhere. He would eventually end up talking about moss growing - sounding like George Will or Tim Russert- contrived, staid, and utterly predictable = saying nothing controversial at all- not exploring anything - not even trying to connect the simplest of dots.
Yep. But that is where it would end under this so-called 'fairness' doctrine. [EDIT: Note that elections are virtually only lefties or righties--it is because they've made frigging election laws such that others have virtually no chance of success--and that is just the way they want it.] Other opinions, as you noted, would be lost, if ever initially found, in the shuffle of 'liar, liar pants afire' crap emanating from the righties or the lefties. I want to listen to whoever I want to listen to--or to listen to no one. I can think for myself--I sure as hell don't need the pilldown man or a nutty rebuttal from a leftie. Next thing you know, people will be demanding that laws be passed to make people be smarter/think smarter/do it 'their' way/blah blah blah. The market will take care of it....IMO.
The problem is that the media market in this country may be rigged. Thus I can see why people are groping about for "solutions". But a "fairness doctrine" would be a treatment worse than the disease. It would merely have the effect of making our political discourse sound more Sovietesque and boring. Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly- put on a show- and dress up their beltway toadyism as somehow "popular."
We break up monopolies to foster competition. No govt subsidies - just have many PRIVATE owners who don't cross own other media companies.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
But...the people...they want a homogenous product that's easy to digest.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Look up how Johnny Carson would make fun of those kinds of fairness doctrine moments - though it was before my time I do know of his skist through repeats I saw. Floyd R. Turbo is a recurring character on The Tonight Show. Floyd R. Turbo - Opinionated super-patriot first seen in 1977 during skits on the late night talk variety show THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JOHNNY CARSON/NBC/1962- 92. Floyd R. Turbo (played by Johnny Carson) was an "everyman" type who taped editorial messages for television, (a la Gilda Radner's befuddled Emily Litella character). Billed as "Mr. Silent Majority," (and based on characters he encountered in his northeast Nebraska childhood) Floyd R. Turbo dressed in a plaid hunting jacket and hat, and stood nervously in front of a TV camera as he delivered his opinions on gun control, war, women's lib, and hunting ("If God didn't want us to hunt, He wouldn't have given up plaid shirts; I only kill in self defense-what would you do if a rabbit pulled a knife on you?"). Johnny Carson told Rolling Stone reporter Timothy White "He's (Turbo) the epitome of the redneck ignoramus. I find the things (characteristics) each week when I go out to do...his gestures at the wrong time, his not knowing where he's supposed to be, his feeble attempts at humor, his talks about things he doesn't quite understand." Here's an example of Turbo's wisdom on nuclear reactors. "And what's all this fuss about plutonium: How can something named after a Disney character be dangerous? So what if an atomic plant blows up? The people who say that, they are afraid to die. I'm not afraid to die because all my life I have lived by the Good Book, the American Legion magazine...They say atomic radiation can hurt your reproductive organs. My answer is, so can a hockey stick, but we don't stop building them....Sure, nuclear leaks will affect the forest animals. So what if a deer grows up with two rear ends? They're easier to shoot...So in my simple way, I' m asking that you support nuclear energy. Remember being an American means being powerful, proud and pushy, and in conclusion let me finish by ending...Thank You." And on the draft Turbo offered this opinion: "This station wants no draft. They want to deprive a boy of the Army. The Army is educational. The Army teaches you how to do dental work-with the butt of a rifle....how to tell what time it is by making a sundial out of a dead person...how to make beer out of bird droppings and also how to make a rubber girl out of an inner tube...In conclusion, I say we should not end the draft. We should increase it. We have a moral obligation to give Bob Hope soldiers to entertain. Fellow Americans, it is a honor to be drafted and to serve your country. Thank you, bye-bye, and buy bonds."
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
See my above about breaking up the media crossownership. Sorry I didn't have time to read your post at the time I wrote mine and posted it - I added you and others on the ping list with edit function after. It's not as simple as evil GOP vs wonderful looking out for the people's interest Dems, Destro. Degregulation had already started before GWB took office - actually it started under the Clinton Admin.- Bush appointed Chair of the FCC to accelerate the process that his surrogate brother, Billy Jeff had begun. ( radio had already been deregulated and cross ownership was allowed) http://www.forbes.com/2002/ 04/10/mpowell.html Based on what I read the deregulation in 2003 came about as a result of successful previous Supreme Court challenges to the existing FCC rules. Admittedly instead of having Congress draft lawsuit proof new media legislation, the FCC in 2003 merely threw out the baby with the bath water. In fact a report that showed the disasterous effects of de-regulating in radio was suppressed in 2003. Diane Feinstein received a copy. The happy news is that "Most of the rules the commission voted on in 2003 were thrown out by an appeals court in Philadelphia. The agency is reconsidering them." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/18/senator_says_me dia_study_suppressed/ "Senator says media study suppressed" 09/18/06 So Humpty Dumpty can be be put back again in a better lawsuit proof version if Congress so chooses.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm pointing out the Law of Unintended Consequences so that you realize what you are getting into. The moment a "Fairness Doctrine" is put into place, do you have any doubts that it will be exploited? Realistically, what you want is censorship and marginalization. What you are going to get is a bloodbath and a fight if you open up doors to people who are a lot smarter, a lot more clever, and a lot more conniving than you are. "Fairness" will never exist. Get used to that idea. There will always be someone waiting in the wings to exploit the system and they will. There is nothing you can do about it. I've said it before and I will say it again: If you fix a defect, you introduce a new one. The Law of Unintended Consequences ALWAYS strikes, no matter how air-tight you design a system.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
There may be some back room shady deals the gubmint uses to get its propaganda out but there is no shortage of available bandwith for opposing views to get out. It's just the typical whining of people who don't want to pony up the money. A top 50 market station can be had for less than people on the coasts pay for a decent house. LOL, hells yes, let's buy out VIACOM. You put up the money and I'll be the brains of the outfit.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
It sure needs to be done. Check out this chart of limited and cross ownership of our media - it will make you positively gag: http://www.mediachannel .org/ownership/chart.shtml Here's an activist site giving info on what the issues are regarding media ownership monopoly and what we as consumers, voters can do. http://www.freepress.net/issues/ I think for starters anti-trust laws need to be applied properly to this media ownership cabal that has developed over time. From the above-mentioned site: "Antitrust prosecution is potentially a powerful recourse in the fight against media consolidation." Antitrust prosecution is potentially a powerful recourse in the fight against media consolidation. Antitrust might be a way to break up the largest firms, shift control from corporations to consumers, and create a more democratic media system. Yet antitrust has yet to be employed to stop a major media deal. The very foundation of antitrust law is the idea that concentrated private power threatens democratic government – which is exactly what’s happening to the media. Yet Washington currently considers antitrust as merely a way to manage price-fixing and minor market failures. Under the current system, each merger is dealt with separately. Thus if one large company is allowed to get bigger, all of its competitors must be allowed to do the same. A more productive approach would be to look broadly at how a merger (or the likelihood of successive mergers) may affect the entire media landscape. A market that seems competitive from the prevailing antitrust perspective may be extremely concentrated from a democratic perspective – which suggests the need for a broader definition of antitrust in the media realm. Antitrust regulation should focus on vertical integration and cross-ownership – not just traditional horizontal integration. While one company doesn’t own all the TV networks, cable systems or radio stations, when just a handful each own 20 percent of these industries, much greater scrutiny is needed."
How can you claim "monopoly" when you just posted a criticism of said monopoly on a website that isn't corporate owned and linked to two websites that also were free to criticize the "monopoly"? The word has a specific meaning. It's not that people can't hear or read alternative messages, they just don't want to or don't agree with them. I mean most of us can't even open our own family members' eyes or change their minds and we have 24/7 access to them. We're the 5 percenters. Have been throughout history and probably always will be. Honestly, do you really think if you bought Clear Channel tomorrow and ended Rush's syndication and put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings?
How many people would feel empowered? How many people care about feeling empowered? They're the ones the rest of us should watch, except that would constitute busybodying. What a paradox.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The 5% that agree. How many people care about feeling empowered? 9.4%
b. It's not that people can't hear or read alternative messages, they just don't want to or don't agree with them. I mean most of us can't even open our own family members' eyes or change their minds and we have 24/7 access to them. We're the 5 percenters. Have been throughout history and probably always will be. c. Honestly, do you really think if you bought Disney tomorrow and ended Rush's syndication and put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings? a. You are right. Monopoly in the context of media ownership has a specific meaning - it applies to print, audio, and visual media media industries. The internet is not owned by the media moguls and that's why I can post on Christine's site and that's why an activist site can exist on the net. b. It's easier for people to get their news from print or radio or TV and that's not going to change for a while - not everyone is comfortable with or adept at or can afford the luxury of surfing the net to get news and or read diverse opinions. Therefore I think the media monopolies of "traditional" media need to be broken up for modern day America to have a chance at a less corporate manipulated general public. c. It's not a matter of new ownership for Disney. It's a matter of the DOJ using anti-trust laws to force Disney to sell off its ownership of subsidiaries across the film, TV, newspaper, radio spectrum. Disney would need to choose to concentrate on one of the 4. And if an independent buyer like me could afford to buy the Disney radio channel, perhaps I'd keep Rush on. But the following hour I might have a liberal talk show host on like Rachel Maddox. Who knows? It would be all up to me and not up to a bunch of corporate suits in LA who attend cocktail parties with the Viacom CEO and political insiders who together decide albeit informally what message the elites want to promote on any given day or week or month as I suspect happens now.
One example of how bad media consolidation was for radio listening: Media consolidation has meant that niche radio stations (that made profits but not the margins I imagine a Clear Channel would like) that catered to Oldies music or Jazz, etc have vanished from the scene. New York used to have 6 rock stations now they have half a rock station - half talk and half rock on weekends. They replaced the Oldies station (I am more of a 90s music guy) with a concept they call 'Jack' - yes Oldies were getting less popular as the 50s generation was getting older dying but they still made a profit. The audience for these stations were loyal and they were left without their music source - in other words the old stations served their communities and were commercially viable. Now the main mandate of over the air radio - to serve the community in exchange for the air license over public airways is not being met. In fact the airwaves have become defacto private property with radios only mission is to make money and screw the community.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It didn't do this for fifty years. Why should it suddenly start? For most of Radio's existence the Fairness Doctrine has been in place. It didn't go away until Reagan decided to give a boost to the GOP political radio. Your idea is to let Mays, Bush's best friend and biggest campaign contributor decide who gets on? That is what is happening now. The GOP fear mongering that is now coming out didn't happen then, why should it happen now? Coulter didn't run the national networks then and she won't now. Children won't be required to listen to Limbaugh 12 hours per day any more than they were the last time the doctrine was in effect. People who are slandered by the on air personalities will however have an opportunity to request time to rebut the allegations. I know the GOP is terrified of this, and I see the fear tactics they are using to demonize the idea, but it was and is a basically fair system and one they will not be able to oppose when the facts are out. Hence the wild eyed hysteria right now.
.
I think the stations you are talking about here are the local stations in sparesly populated regions with ranges of about thirty miles. They have to shut down at night to allow the clear channel stations to take over. They have a very small audience reach and that is why they are cheap.
.
I'm boycotting NBC, MSNBC, and CBS. Besides, they're shit networks.
Buy an I-Pod.
Nope, many of those listed are Class As. You can buy a station in Raleigh NC with a metro population of 1 million for under 500k. I hope you weren't thinking you were going to start off with a transmitter on the Chrysler building for 10,000. Hop to it. If people like what you have for programming you can take your profits and buy another and another. You'll be a media mogul in no time.
Yeah, and there wasn't hardly any political radio. Great, I can't wait for Lawrence Welk to reclaim his AM throne.
Here you go. Grab your pocket book. http://broadcaststations4sale.com/sale.html http://lite.globalbx.com/Newspapers%5Clitecatlistings.html http://www.businessnation.com/Businesses_for_Sale/Media-Publishing/Publishing/ http://www.mergernetwork.com/c/newspaper-publishers-for-sale/
Just scanned your list and it looks like anything over 5kW goes up to at least a million bucks right away. You are not going to change the world with a low power transmitter covering a medium sized town in South Carolina.
.
There is very little political radio now. About all I see on FM is GOP propaganda. Do you think Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage or good sources of information? I mean, other than to see what the GOP wants to goobers to believe at any given moment?
.
I own an I-Pod just like I OWN a portion of the public airwaves that is held in trust in my name as well as that of every citizen. A corporation does not own the airwaves - they utilize them on a privileged basis only.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are so blinded by your stereo typing of people into your GOP/Dem pigeon holed slots it's impossible to have a open debate with you. Applying anti-trust laws properly, as I have suggested, to break up media cross owning monopolies does not mean letting "Roger Ails, Bush's best friend highest campaign contributor decide who gets on" You are being irrational. As for what is happening now, did you bother to read any of the material I linked to regarding how the monoplies came about. This situation did not come about as a result of GWB's election. It started long before and Fair Doctrine did not prevent it. The problem comes from a combination of successful Supreme Court challenges, Congressional ineffective action or inaction, and mis-application of the anti-trust laws on the books. How did the Fairness Doctrine help America be better informed since its inception in 1949 to the time it was side-lined under Reagan in the late '80's? In that time span we sailed through the McCarthy Commie witch hunts, the Kennedys' and Martin Luther King assassinations, the white wash of the Warren Commission, the faux Tonkin Incident, the MIC fueled Vietnam War, conscription for a war of lies, Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, the secret bombing of Cambodia, Carter starting the CIA support and training of the muhjadeen in Afghanistan, the Iran Contra deal taking place. The Fairness Doctrine instead of ensuring both sides of a controversial issue was heard on radio with the threat of fines or licenses being yanked did nothing of the kind. Instead it ushered in a time of quiet acquiescence non controversial lame news reporting that did not help one bit in giving us both sides of issues. In fact you know why a guy like Rush became so popular with initially liberals ( I hate to break it to you) and conservatives alike? It was because Rush was COLORFUL, CONTROVERSIAL, OPINIONATED and Americans - even if they did not agree with Rush - were STARVED for outside the box take it or leave it controversial opinions news analysis, instead of boring bland packaged pablum. In other words 40 years of Fairness Docterine made a guy like Rush a star and it gave rise to a TV market who swooned over Fox News, because as unbalanced as it was, FOX served up glitz and controversy and "the other side." You want Fairness Doctrine - go for it - the 2003 FCC regs have been thrown out by courts - press your Dem controlled Congressmen to bring back Fair Doctrine - and then you'll have to listen to guys like BAC presenting their schtick on Air America. Be my guest. Maybe it'll keep BAC occupied so he has no time to post his newsmax here. Here's the problem we have in this nation regarding the media and Fairness Doctrine has zero to do in serving as an antidote to the problem at hand. Look beyond your left/right pigeon holes.
You do? How much can you sell it for? How many shares do you own? Maybe you don't know what ownership is.
And it looks to me like you want even less. Are you going to make all those mom and pop stations follow the fairness doctrine too? So when they criticize the city council or the local garbage service they have to allow a rebuttal? How long do you think it will be before they switch to automated Golden Oldies?
Are you now claiming that the airwaves have become private property? What aspect of public property do you not understand?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Comments (106 - 338) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI'm not the one calling for government enforced "Fairness" that will limit debate to the narrow range of debate the gubmint picks- you are.
#66. To: Burkeman1 (#63)
(Edited)
Now- you are just making a fool of yourself by childishly misrepresenting my views.
#67. To: Burkeman1 (#44)
#68. To: ... (#64)
Yes, and what is wrong with that?
#69. To: ... (#65)
#70. To: rowdee (#67)
#71. To: Burkeman1, mirage, Mekons4, bluedogtxn, ... (#36)
(Edited)
have no doubt they work closely with this administration and government to push a standard proganda line day by day. But that isn't illegal
#72. To: Burkeman1, ..., Mekons4, bluedogtxn, Destro, rowdee (#68)
(Edited)
#73. To: scrapper2, Burkeman1, ..., Mekons4, bluedogtxn, rowdee (#72)
I agree with you, Burke. The Fairness Docterine is useless -
#74. To: Destro (#71)
#75. To: scrapper2 (#72)
#76. To: Mekons4 (#51)
#77. To: Burkeman1 (#70)
(Edited)
See- why does it have to be "leftie"?
#78. To: rowdee (#77)
#79. To: Burkeman1 (#74)
Any government subsidy to media at all
#80. To: Destro (#79)
#81. To: Burkeman1, Mekons4 (#76)
(Edited)
You know what a "Fairness Doctrine" would look like?
"Floyd R. Turbo", a dimwitted yokel responding to a TV station editorial.
#82. To: Destro, Burkeman1, Mekons4, bluedogtxn, rowdee (#73)
The REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves.
#83. To: Mekons4 (#47)
#84. To: Burkeman1 (#78)
The problem is that the media market in this country may be rigged.
#85. To: SmokinOPs (#84)
It's just the typical whining of people who don't want to pony up the money.
#86. To: Destro, Burkeman1, rowdee, Mekons4 (#79)
We break up monopolies to foster competition. No govt subsidies - just have many PRIVATE owners who don't cross own other media companies.
#87. To: scrapper2 (#86)
(Edited)
Here's an activist site giving info on what the issues are regarding media ownership monopoly and what we as consumers, voters can do.
#88. To: SmokinOPs (#87)
put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings?
#89. To: Dakmar (#88)
How many people would feel empowered?
#90. To: SmokinOPs (#87)
How can you claim "monopoly" when you just posted a criticism of said monopoly on a website that isn't corporate owned and linked to two websites that also were free to criticize the "monopoly"? The word has a specific meaning.
#91. To: scrapper2, SmokinOPs, Burkeman1, rowdee, Mekons4 (#90)
#92. To: scrapper2 (#72)
(Edited)
Fairness Docterine would stifle free speech because it would add yet another bureaucracy of well paid pencil pushing obnoxious gov't silly servant news-balance-checker-nazis.
#93. To: SmokinOPs (#84)
There may be some back room shady deals the gubmint uses to get its propaganda out but there is no shortage of available bandwith for opposing views to get out. It's just the typical whining of people who don't want to pony up the money.
#94. To: Brian S (#0)
#95. To: Destro (#91)
One example of how bad media consolidation was for radio listening: Media consolidation has meant that niche radio stations (that made profits but not the margins I imagine a Clear Channel would like) that catered to Oldies music or Jazz, etc have vanished from the scene.
#96. To: ... (#93)
(Edited)
I think the stations you are talking about here are the local stations in sparesly populated regions with ranges of about thirty miles. They have to shut down at night to allow the clear channel stations to take over. They have a very small audience reach and that is why they are cheap.
#97. To: ... (#92)
For most of Radio's existence the Fairness Doctrine has been in place.
#98. To: scrapper2 (#90)
(Edited)
It's easier for people to get their news from print or radio or TV and that's not going to change for a while...
#99. To: SmokinOPs (#96)
Nope, many of those listed are Class As. You can buy a station in Raleigh NC with a metro population of 1 million for under 500k.
#100. To: SmokinOPs (#97)
Yeah, and there wasn't hardly any political radio.
#101. To: SmokinOPs (#95)
(Edited)
Buy an I-Pod.
#102. To: ..., Burkeman1, Smokin'OPS, Destro (#92)
(Edited)
Your idea is to let Roger Ails, Bush's best friend highest campaign contributor decide who gets on? That is what is happening now.
#103. To: Destro (#101)
I own an I-Pod just like I OWN a portion of the public airwaves...
#104. To: ... (#100)
There is very little political radio now.
#105. To: SmokinOPs (#103)
Maybe you don't know what ownership is.
.
.
.