Democrats Push to Silence Conservative Talk Show Hosts

Not only do they not have a message that sells but they stand for nothing, and if they do decide to stand for something, wait around five minutes and they will change their mind.

Abortion: Well we firmly believe it is a woman's right to chose..but we also feel abortion is not good for the society as a whole and is just a symptom of society's problems.

Church and State: We firmly believe that God should be taken out of everything! But we believe in God.

Free Speech: We have the right to say anything we want, but Christians should shut up and quit trying to tell us how to run our lives! Shirts that have four letter words are ok in our schools but that Christian wearing the Jesus Christ T-shirt should be suspended! Oh and we should teach Koran in our schools, under the first amendment, but still you should not allow that Bible in class!

Come on how can anyone in this group say they stand for something!

 

I don't get it - how is preventing a broadcast monopoly silencing conservative talk shows (which are mainly cable)?

I'm assuming that the OP refers to a reintroduction of the Media Reform Act of 2005 (linkie to summary) which was also introduced by Rep. Maurice Hinchey.

 

There must be more....They are not stupid. I think it may be the opening salvo against those far right wing conservative Christians. Ooops, I are one.

 

The left exists in an insular world. Talk radio sprang up right after the last "Fairness Doctrine" expired in the late 1980's. Before that, the media, almost all it, was dominated by the left only. Those were the good old days to the likes of Bernie Sanders (S-VT).

"Airhead America" had no vacuum to fill, the Old Media and NPR was enough.

They realize they live in a predominantley Christian country. It's disturbing when these same people say that they had to rush the stage becasue they were being verbally assaulted by "hate speech".

They think the NYT, al-AP, MSNBC, et al are objective and unbiased, and will act accordingly.

They're pessimistic, cynical, driven by blind rage and lack any perspective.

This is where they'll try to revert to the old definition of the word "liberal", as if saying it makes it so. "Liberal" will trump "Christian" every time for them.

 

Just one man's opinion for what its worth...but I have worked in radio off and on for years, and I have been a lobbyist.

Its not that the liberal viewpoint isn't wanted. Its because that for years the liberal viewpoint could be found in almost all nightly newscast. The average American, busting his hump 40+ hours a week, that his God, family, and his dog; from the 60s on, has heard some of the most bias points of view given as "news" that it is almost unbelievable.

Rush Limbaugh when he hit the airwaves was a breath of fresh air. Granted now he is stale, but in the late 80s and early 90s there was no where else that the working man with conservative values was going to get conservative viewpoints on radio or TV. Other outlets made fun of him...had a condescending attitude toward him.

Liberal talk radio doesn't work for 2 reasons....the hosts so far are not entertaining, they're whining or combative, but not entertaining. Plus the liberal point of view is availble daily in most mainstream newspapers and TV outlets.

 

How is that a strawman? I asked if the OP refered to a particular piece of legislation which the article cited:

If there is another piece of legislation that you are referring to, cite it, but addressing the OP is not a strawman.

Oh lookee, carpro made another nasty personal remark. What a surprise.

 

Just can't resist personal attacks, eh carpro? My posts referred to & quoted the article cited in the OP and as such are on point whereas your nastiness towards me is off-topic. Do you have anything to say about the topic or do you want to taunt me some more?

Yes, indeedy, that is what the bill in the OP article is about. Did you have a different piece of legislation in mind (2nd time)?

 

Well, everybody's got a favourite subject.

The democrats are following their natural instincts, which is to form committees to study global warming and to regulate anything they think is unfair to them.

 

They want to regulate the talk shows out of business as they fund pacs so that they can get around campaign contribution limits.

:saint:

 

Can any of you decrying the "regulation" actually cite it? It can't be the one mentioned in the OP as that is about monopoly of broadcast media (publically owned airspace).

 

For most of my life, the idea was that if the public granted you temporary use of the airwaves, you had a responsiblity to permit all points of view in your broadcasts.

If you didn't want to allow that, you were free to use your own medium, instead of that belonging to the public. It worked very well, and the public was served by getting all points of view.

Only in recent years has the fairness doctrine been removed. If you think that politics have become more rational or public-spirited in that time, you'd be in the minority.

 

Tunnel vision. Hey, you're right! This post:

is the problem with having some benchmark of faux "fairness". The "center" is where you are politically and/or what you agree with. The media was your monopoly in the good old days.

 

For years conservatives have made the argument that the media is extremely biased towards a liberal point of view. If you believe that this is true (I don't) why would you be against requiring the liberal media to present both points of view? Obviously, none on the conservatives on this board really believes that the media is extremely liberal. Interesting.

 

Because for years the media has been extremley biased toward a liberal point of view?

Because I believe it to be true that the Old Media was/is extremely biased to a liberal point of view and I know you don't?

There was a Fairness Doctrine in play for almost forty years, there was nothing "fair' about it. Been there, done that.

Monopoly no more.

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
For most of my life, the idea was that if the public granted you temporary use of the airwaves, you had a responsiblity to permit all points of view in your broadcasts.

If you didn't want to allow that, you were free to use your own medium, instead of that belonging to the public. It worked very well, and the public was served by getting all points of view.

Only in recent years has the fairness doctrine been removed. If you think that politics have become more rational or public-spirited in that time, you'd be in the minority.

Don't see how. If a station permitted any opinion at all, the fairness doctrine required them to let opposing voices have their say on the matter. In the 1984-speak of the neocons, letting all voices be heard is "faux fairness," I suppose.

Doesn't matter. Opposing viewpoints had to be heard. It was a matter of being American in those days. As I said, we've drifted considerably away from traditional American ideals since then.

Don't think so. When Nat King Cole got his own television show, it was considered highly "controversial" to be so liberal as to let a black man have his own television program, and the uproar doomed the show. The political climate then was conservative and it was the liberals who usually got air time to rebut conservative viewpoints presented by the networks. Which is why it got axed, I suppose.