If you won't vote for OBAMA because of Wright you weren't gonna vote for him anyway.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by snakesht

I don't think my alleged cowardice has anything to do with the fairness doctrine.

And since it is so obvious to everyone, and I'm not likely to change based on your insults, what's the point of stating it? Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself to put others down, and have all your like-minded buddies join in.

I don't care who agrees with me about your spinelessness. Your opinions about Iraq disgusted me to the point you are the only person on this whole board I wouldn't share a beer with.

And, your spinelessness regarding Iraq is similar to your selfishly smug attitude toward how you think the Fairness Doctrine works. It is a similar self referential circle. As long as you are focused on yourself, you should do some self examination. Maybe there's a decent person in there somewhere, and maybe you could find him.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by snakesht

So by abolishing the fairness doctrine, we determined that the majority of people who listen to talk radio prefer conservative programs. If that weren't true, progressive talk would have a larger share of the market.

Bingo. Which goes to my original point about the "Fairness Doctrine"...that is, liberals want government intervention to shut the other side up.

THe people speak....and are heard, hence the fact that over 90% of talk radio is conservative....BY POPULAR DEMAND.

Sheesh. WHen will you guys understand and accept that at least for NOW, this is still a right center leaning country.

[snakesht]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

I don't care who agrees with me about your spinelessness. Your opinions about Iraq disgusted me to the point you are the only person on this whole board I wouldn't share a beer with.

Shucks, I was looking forward to that.

And, your spinelessness regarding Iraq is similar to your selfishly smug attitude toward how you think the Fairness Doctrine works. It is a similar self referential circle. As long as you are focused on yourself, you should do some self examination. Maybe there's a decent person in there somewhere, and maybe you could find him.

I'm not that worried about the Fairness Doctrine, as I don't listen to or watch much of anything that will be affected by it. Just stating my interpretation of why I don't think it lives up to its name.

I'll keep looking for that person, btw.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by snakesht

So by abolishing the fairness doctrine, we determined that the majority of people who listen to talk radio prefer conservative programs. If that weren't true, progressive talk would have a larger share of the market.

It is your preference to believe what you wish. I don't believe it's your "preference" to dominate the opinions expressed on the public airwaves at the exclusion of competing views, especially when those views are regulated by the government using limited public resources (frequency bandwidth).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your preference is to not hear political opinions you disagree with by excluding them from the public discourse via broadcast media, or at least your defending that notion.

It is no more my preference to monopolize with my own views than to allow others to do the same.

If the broadcast does not contain political opinion or personal attacks, then the Fairness Doctrine would not apply.

[snakesht]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your preference is to not hear political opinions you disagree with by excluding them from the public discourse via broadcast media, or at least your defending that notion.

As I stated above, it wouldn't necessarily have an impact on my daily life. There is only one political talk show host that I can stand to listen to, but I rarely get the opportunity to do so. But I think the general public (or at least the demographic that listens to talk radio) have made their preference known, as reflected by the statistics. To force the programs to alter their format to include other content, which at this point is apparently unwanted, seems like a step towards censorship.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

It is your preference to believe what you wish. I don't believe it's your "preference" to dominate the opinions expressed on the public airwaves at the exclusion of competing views, especially when those views are regulated by the government using limited public resources (frequency bandwidth).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your preference is to not hear political opinions you disagree with by excluding them from the public discourse via broadcast media, or at least your defending that notion.

It is no more my preference to monopolize with my own views than to allow others to do the same.

If the broadcast does not contain political opinion or personal attacks, then the Fairness Doctrine would not apply.

Who is preccluding opinions we disagree with? Answer....nobody. The truth is that liberal programs have failed and failed miserably. There is simply too little demand.

Check in with Air America.

[Trash]

Originally Posted by Dakota Kid

Who is preccluding opinions we disagree with? Answer....nobody. The truth is that liberal programs have failed and failed miserably. There is simply too little demand.

Check in with Air America.

You need to do some research. Regardless of how well Air America is doing all the national Lefty Talk Show hosts are still on the air. Except Al Franken who left to run for senator in Michigan. So which ones failed and failed miserably?

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by snakesht

And once again, you resort to insults and name-calling in order to avoid making a rational argument.

Sounded rational to me -- including the derogation.

Just sayin'...

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by snakesht

On the surface, no. But since 91% of talk radio is conservative (figure from 2007 source here), allowing equal time to liberals on those stations would cause a loss of interest from many listeners and therefore the advertisers would have less incentive to spend money supporting the programs. After a drop in ratings, the stations would realize that the only way to make money is to change formats, much to the delight of liberals.

Looks to me like another attempt at government stepping in to destroy the success of private enterprise.

Hey dumbass. The COTUS stated the airwaves belong to the public. Being so the fed established rules that ensured that no radio station could take a political position and had it had give equal time to both sides of an issue. It also ensure that AM radio had to perform a "public service" by providing news and weather in exchange for the opportunity to sell air time to advertisers and make money off a publicly owned medium.

You see, during the THE HOOVER administration some people were afraid AM radio would be dominated by NBC and CBS and they thought that radio was such a powerful medium that no one should dominate political content. So they created the concept of "equal time." How fucking unfair is that? That was in 1927 or 1929)

Seems like a pretty good rule to me, even though established by a Republican president-- and taken down by a Democratic president (Clinton) As usual, the llaw is behind the times.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by snakesht

To force the programs to alter their format to include other content, which at this point is apparently unwanted, seems like a step towards censorship.

Like I said already, seems like a stretch to me. This does not control what you say, it only requires equal time for opposing viewpoints, and limited to political opinions or personal attacks. It also does not affect cable or Internet sources.

[Trash]

Originally Posted by flylooper

Hey dumbass. The COTUS stated the airwaves belong to the public. Being so the fed established rules that ensured that no radio station could take a political position and had it had give equal time to both sides of an issue. It also ensure that AM radio had to perform a "public service" by providing news and weather in exchange for the opportunity to sell air time to advertisers and make money off a publicly owned medium.

You see, during the THE HOOVER administration some people were afraid AM radio would be dominated by NBC and CBS and they thought that radio was such a powerful medium that no one should dominate political content. So they created the concept of "equal time." How fucking unfair is that? That was in 1927 or 1929)

Seems like a pretty good rule to me, even though established by a Republican president-- and taken down by a Democratic president (Clinton) As usual, the llaw is behind the times.

Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act which allowed companies to own Radio and TV stations in the same market (good bye competition), and has led to tons of media consolidation. Probably worse than what Reagan did.

[SXSMITH]

Originally Posted by Trash

You need to do some research. Regardless of how well Air America is doing all the national Lefty Talk Show hosts are still on the air. Except Al Franken who left to run for senator in Michigan. So which ones failed and failed miserably?

This one??

Liberal Talk Show Host Bernie Ward Admits to Distribution of Child Pornography « JONATHAN TURLEY

[Gaolee]

He was distributing kiddie porn? Are you sure he wasn't a Republican Congressman?

[Trash]

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

This one??

Liberal Talk Show Host Bernie Ward Admits to Distribution of Child Pornography « JONATHAN TURLEY

I never heard him. Former Catholic priest. Heeeelllllllllllloooooooo!!!!

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

This one??

Liberal Talk Show Host Bernie Ward Admits to Distribution of Child Pornography « JONATHAN TURLEY

Too funny. I was just gonna say one of the libs will be along shortly to redirect to Republicans.,....but Gaolee already did just that.

Liberal Talk radio was an abject failure. Total disgrace.

No surprise.