Liberals trying to silence talk radio?

[JaJae]

I can't believe people want to silence conservatives on the radio, but don't aren't also advocating censorship of liberal television. This is just another attempt to stack the cards on one side and prevent dissenting opinion from going public.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Oh, I never thought of it as forcing AM radio to give Al Franken a show. I thought it would be forcing Hannity to turn his radio show into Hannity and Colmes or something.

Anyway...

Why should conservative media have the benefit of using public airwaves to profit, when as you say, they couldn't profit privately?

I mean, if in fact the fairness act would silence conservative voices, then you're arguing the free market would not support conservative media elsewhere. If it could support them elsewhere, the voices haven't been silenced, they've just been moved around.

Are there not enough people who like Hannity, O'Reily, et al to make it attractive for satellite radio to pick them up? Would you answer by saying people shouldn't have to pay for satellite radio to hear someone because of government interference?

But how can you call it government interference when the only way these AM shows were profitable was by taking advantage of cheap government airwaves? The previous use of government airwaves for conservative media was an act of government benevolence. It can be taken away.

What's with the sense of entitlement?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you really believe what you are saying or are you just making arguments to keep the conversation going?

Government regulates the airwaves, yes. They can try to keep a lid on obscenities and such, yes. But are you saying that you think Democrats have the right to take control of the programing department of every radio station in the country and make changes they don't feel are right? Maybe they feel there are too many country stations and we need more easy listening stations. It shouldn't matter that these stations pay for the right to use the airwaves. No free speech limits going on here! None!

If you feel there is nothing wrong with government (aka Democrats) wanting to have complete control of what is said over the radio airwaves... Well, there isn't much use talking to you about it then, is there?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

Why don't the liberals stop bitching about how big Hannity's audience is and get someone people are willing to listen to? Oh that's right....because they tried and nobody listened so now rather than trying to raise themselves up they're going to try to knock everyone else down. Typical liberal bullshit.

Amen my brother! Amen....

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you really believe what you are saying or are you just making arguments to keep the conversation going?

A little of both.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Government regulates the airwaves, yes. They can try to keep a lid on obscenities and such, yes.

Hold up....It's more than that. The government doesn't merely regulate airwaves like they regulate airplanes and guns. There are no limit on the number of planes or guns that can be made.

There are, however, a limit number of radio stations. So it's more than just the government regulating things that are floating around. It's that there's a limited amount of radio "real estate" that the government owns, and it allows people a limited license to use it. This entails a greater degree of responsibility on the government's part, especially when you consider that that limited resource is being used to shape our democracy.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

But are you saying that you think Democrats have the right to take control of the programing department of every radio station in the country and make changes they don't feel are right?

If it's a cable or satellite radio station, then no, but if it's a radio station which uses limited airwaves, then I think, in theory, the government can control the content in the same way it can control what's put on the white house lawn or a national park. Whether it's a good idea or whether it's practical is another question.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Maybe they feel there are too many country stations and we need more easy listening stations. It shouldn't matter that these stations pay for the right to use the airwaves. No free speech limits going on here! None!

The government has no compelling or even reasonable interest in limiting a certain style of music over another. Political opinion, however, shapes our entire country. That gives the government an interest that might warrant ensuring fairness.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

If you feel there is nothing wrong with government (aka Democrats) wanting to have complete control of what is said over the radio airwaves... Well, there isn't much use talking to you about it then, is there?

This isn't about Democrat or Repbulican. Both parties switch in and out of power, and in the future, public taste may dictate that AM radio is dominated by liberals. If the subject is mandating equal time to all sides, then there is nothing partisan about it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

This entails a greater degree of responsibility on the government's part, especially when you consider that that limited resource is being used to shape our democracy.

Who is going to determine if a show is liberal or conservative?
How will it be determined?
Is O'Reilly liberal or conservative .... or something else?
What if he's liberal on one idea but conservative on another...how does that factor in? (huh, I said "factor")
Are you ok with forcing Al Franken to open his show to other opinions? Will he be? Oh that's right, he's off the air


This whole "the govt controls the airwaves so they have the responsibility to make sure both opinions are heard" crap is just that, crap. It's pussyhurt liberals trying to legislate listeners to their ideas. There is nothing preventing them from taking advantage of the "govt controlled airwaves" except a lack of listeners..........maybe they should realize their ideas suck and that's why nobody is listening.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

.maybe they should realize their ideas suck and that's why nobody is listening.

I think the biggest problem with liberal radio is that it's more emotional driven and less logic driven. It's hard to debate or call in when Al Franken is going on for 2 hours about how stupid Bush is. Eventually it just gets... boring.

Air America is looking to make a comeback. But their elitist mentality is killing them. They claim the reason they keep failing is because they're too fair to conservatives and if/when they do come back they'll be sure to not be as fair anymore. It's absurd. Nobody wants to listen to such radical stupidity.

You can argue that Hannity or O'Rielly are too conservative for your liking. But a lot of people can listen to them and go "hey I agree with that" or can debate their points. Air America was just hate mongering idiocracy that leaves you scratching your head going "Huh." Liberals in the media tend to be far left of the average American or even the average Democrat. And their elitist attitude towards their shows is what buries. So since they don't have the ability to compete, they're attempting to silence their competition.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok, call me an idiot. What money are you talking about?

advertising dollars. if liberals could pull the same crowd then they would be popular and be on the air.

it is supply and demand. there is no big demand, thus no need to supply it.

[DosEquis]

I dont see how it would completely muzzle Hannity and the others. It would just make sure Colmes had 50% of the airtime on the show instead of the 10% he has now.

For the record I don't agree with it, but I dont see it getting rid of their opinions but simply just limiting the amount of time they have to express it to ensure that both sides are presented.

In fact, Fox News should be ok with it anyway because they are "Fair and Balanced" already right?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont see how it would completely muzzle Hannity and the others. It would just make sure Colmes had 50% of the airtime on the show instead of the 10% he has now.

For the record I don't agree with it, but I dont see it getting rid of their opinions but simply just limiting the amount of time they have to express it to ensure that both sides are presented.

In fact, Fox News should be ok with it anyway because they are "Fair and Balanced" already right?

I dont really care if fox or anyone is ok with it, its a violation of the constitution.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They claim the reason they keep failing is because they're too fair...

And the music industry says it's failing because of illegal downloads. Again, it's deflection... in both cases their content sucks so nobody is willing to pay, but they can't say "hey, our content sucks" so they say "hey, let's blame........THEM!! and THAT!!" and then bitch about how to stop "them" and "that" rather than look inside.

You can argue that Hannity or O'Rielly are too conservative for your liking. But a lot of people can listen to them and go "hey I agree with that" or can debate their points.

I can't stand Hannity. I think a lot of his ideas are too extreme. I really, REALLY hate his delivery and his holier-than-thou attitude. But I listen when I'm on a long drive. Because he presents a logical argument that makes me think. I listened to Franken's show more than once and it just sucked. For the time I listened all I heard was exactly what you said, "bush sucks, cheney sucks, rove is a war criminal, blah blah blah" but there was no substance....no reason for me to go back. I felt like I'd heard all he had to say after the 3rd time of hearing the same shit.

So since they don't have the ability to compete, they're attempting to silence their competition.

Exactly.

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

In fact, Fox News should be ok with it anyway because they are "Fair and Balanced" already right?

When you're ok with CNN and NPR giving up 50% of their time to Fox, sure.

[Scrum]

Yeah, liberals are fucking retarded and they are ruining America.

They are the only ones advocating any kind of censorship. Oh wait....

[Scrum]

And for the record, the liberal stations on satellite radio are doing just fine.

Perhaps if the white trash had to pay to have their views handed to them by Rush they would get off welfare and quit pumping out trailer-park babies so they could afford it. (generalizing is fun).

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

And for the record, the liberal stations on satellite radio are doing just fine.

I don't have satellite radio. Who/what talk stations are there?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't have satellite radio. Who/what talk stations are there?

I only have Sirius. I'm pretty sure XM has political channels as well (they are supposed to be merging soon).

SIRIUS Satellite Radio - Talk Radio – Listen to Talk Radio on SIRIUS Satellite Radio

Fox also has a station that's listed as "News".

Some shows they pick up off of Air America, some come from other local hosts form all over and some get contracts with the Sirius station.

The only shows I'm normally able to catch are Bill Press and Ed Schultz. I spend much more time listening to NFL radio.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Hold up....It's more than that. The government doesn't merely regulate airwaves like they regulate airplanes and guns. There are no limit on the number of planes or guns that can be made.

There are, however, a limit number of radio stations. So it's more than just the government regulating things that are floating around. It's that there's a limited amount of radio "real estate" that the government owns, and it allows people a limited license to use it. This entails a greater degree of responsibility on the government's part, especially when you consider that that limited resource is being used to shape our democracy.

Then by your logic, we better make sure that the socialists, fascists, rebels, Nazis, Communists, racists, Creationists, sexists, Constitutionalists, pacifists, activists, theocracists, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, neoconservatives, liberals, libertarians, neolibertarians, paleolibertarians, homophobes, homophobophobes, emos, Asians, Mormons, alarmists, cultists, scaremongers, you, me, my neighbor, your neighbor, his neighbor, his neighbor's neighbor, your mamma's baby's sister's uncle's cousin's Jewish friend's dog, Flat Earth Society, radical Christians, radical Muslims, moderately religious folks, Scientologists, biologists, chemists, biochemists, anthropologists, psychologists, reactionaries, progressivists, traditionalists, neurologists, audiophiles, pedophiles, Bush sackriders, Clinton sackriders, militants, Mexicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Albanians, Marxists, Marxians, aristocrats, bourgeoisie, proletariats, Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, artisans, and even the French get equal air time because the government has a responsibility to delegate those frequencies equally to every possible category of people that we can think of because those air waves are a limited resource!

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Scrum

And for the record, the liberal stations on satellite radio are doing just fine.

Perhaps if the white trash had to pay to have their views handed to them by Rush they would get off welfare and quit pumping out trailer-park babies so they could afford it. (generalizing is fun).

Where else would the republicans get advice on which prescription pain killers were the best, and how many you can take without getting your stomach pumped?

Generalizing is fun! I concur!

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Where else would the republicans get advice on which prescription pain killers were the best, and how many you can take without getting your stomach pumped?

Generalizing is fun! I concur!

generalizing rocks!!

the libs finally smartened up and got a token hottie




instead of their typical woman




I wonder how much Steph is charging them to pretend to be liberal.