Sen.s Clinton & Boxer Want Legislative Fix to Talk Radio

I'm guessing a 14% approval rating is beginning to sink in. The way to fix it is to keep the sheep in the dark.

But Inhofe is, and always has been, a moron.

 

Yep. I lived in Oklahoma, and have known about his antics for a long time.

If what he reports is true (which I doubt), I strongly disagree. The First Amendment would come into play. Media is out of balance due to the lack of independent voices since broadcast deregulation, and that could be addressed. But censorship or purposefully getting the govt. involved more deeply in content should not happen.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I do believe it should probably be reinstated, along with holding 527 groups accountable for truthfulness.

 

Today talk radio, tomorrow...the internet. I can see it coming. The I-Net is the LAST FREE BASTION of free speech on the planet. Big Brother (One World Government) can never let that remain so.

 

It's hard to imagine that we could get more regulated. I know we can, but sheesh.

 

If they try that I really think they will suffer irreparably. A direct attack on free speech. They have to do it more incrementally like the frog in the pot of water on the stove. McCain/Feingold was a good example.

 

The federal government should sell off its interests in the airwaves and allow the free market to work as it has on the Internet. Internet based and satellite based radio is the wave of the future, IMO.

 

If it sells, then someone will make it happen. Right now, neo-con and some true conservatism sells on the radio, liberalism does not, and who knows about independent-ism. For the print press, liberalism wins the race by a wide margin. For mainstream network television, liberalism, with a tad bit of moderation thrown in on occassion, rules the day. For cable news, of course Fox is the big dog with a great neo-con slant, and a few liberals thrown in for show. (How do you like my Dan Rather-isms?)

I don't know why it breaks down like this. You'd think there'd be more balance across the board, regardless of the type of medium, but different political leanings dominate different areas of the press.

Agreed.

My question would be, who decides what is truth? Most issues can be made speculative, regardless of how true they appear. The 9/11 Commission Report is a good example. It states that Middle Eastern Islamo-terrorists blew up the buildings with airplanes. Some of our friendly neighborhood conspiracy theorists disagree. Should they, if they were to form a 527 group (I don't know if there already are some out there), be silenced since their view goes against what most of us believe is the truth about 9/11? Should Ron Paul supporters be silenced for claiming that "the terrorists are coming over here partly because we're over there" when the "truth" held by many is that they just hate freedom, clean water, and air-conditioning?

Also, there was the big stink involving Dan Rather just before the '04 election about GWB. Seems many claimed he did not serve honorably in the military. Taht may very well be true, but he was given an honorable discharge, so in that regard he did serve honorably. Same could be said for the "Swift Boat" people.