tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post9152106817826117652..comments2023-11-05T03:23:48.526-08:00Comments on Talking Radio: Right-Wing is Apoplectic About Radio Re-Regulationbaroooskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135048606474430019noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post-57962916005809870752009-08-30T10:38:55.716-07:002009-08-30T10:38:55.716-07:00There is no doubt that the conservative viewpoint ...There is no doubt that the conservative viewpoint dominates talk radio, but this is not reflective of a monopoly, simply a free market.<br /><br />If proponents if radio re-regulation were truly interested in fairness, then the barrel of the regulatory gun would be pointed at ALL forms of media.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post-25388073271498171992007-07-21T15:27:00.000-07:002007-07-21T15:27:00.000-07:00Many people don’t know where all of the nastiness ...Many people don’t know where all of the nastiness and falsity in our politics came from. I know. I have been listening to right wing hate radio for 18 years, during which time rightist tricksters were allowed to lie without challenge 24/7 on most every major talk radio station in the country, took over and wrecked the Federal government. <BR/><BR/><BR/>For a dozen of those years, the prestigious Annenberg School for Communication at Penn - funded by the conservo TV Guide fortune - studied talk radio and discovered that between 20-50 million listeners had been duped with utter “false certainty” on almost every issue, swinging the past 5 of 6 elections. People simply can’t believe that the radio would be allowed to lie to them so baldly, the very definition of the Big Lie theory. <BR/><BR/><BR/>The solution may not be the Fairness Doctrine, but it is revealing to see the rightist tricksters squeal like stuck pigs over “fairness.” They know this has enabled them to tip the balance of power in the U.S. Perhaps better would be for the Dem Congress FOR ITS OWN SURVIVAL to hold high profile hearings exposing how all of this happened. Have Kathleen Hall Jameson of Annenberg detail the research showing how truth itself was devalued out of our system. Shine a bright light on the ownership which has allowed this to happen, blocking out even the highest rated progressive talkers from major stations while blacklisting tiny struggling Air America, whose three outlets in Ohio were credited with helping win the November election there before Clear Channel shut them down on false pretenses.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Half of America never listens. Educate them as to how their politics turned so nasty and false. It happened on the radio.gregrockerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14593667040335769773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post-73589921483226247232007-07-13T05:21:00.000-07:002007-07-13T05:21:00.000-07:00If big-city corporate-owned radio stations didn't ...If big-city corporate-owned radio stations didn't choose to play songs that are played on other corporate-owned radio stations in the same big city, maybe there would be more liberal talk radio in this country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post-8451345089860029962007-07-11T12:48:00.000-07:002007-07-11T12:48:00.000-07:00But should people be similarly discomforted that C...<I>But should people be similarly discomforted that Coke outsells Faygo 10-to-1? Of course not! Radio markets are a commercial enterprise. In the US there remains enough capitalism that the market is still susceptible to supply and demand.<BR/><BR/>Or is there something special about political speech, rather than pop music, that the government should regulate it such that non-commercially-successful radio talk should be given more airtime than it can win on its own?</I><BR/><BR/>First, you comparison between regulating broadcasting, which is an established principle, and softdrinks is absurd. Broadcasting bandwidth is finite and limited. It is also owned by the people and just licensed to station owners. Even in the deregulatory environment of today there are still lots of regulations in place. e.g.Republicans in Congress have been pushing to increase indecency fines and this will be voted on soon. <BR/><BR/>There are significant differences between political speech and music. That's why political speech is more highly regulated than music. Although the FD was removed 20 years ago, there are still equal time provisions in effect. These of course do not apply to music. Also, several court decision are still in effect granting the FCC with the authority to regulate political speech is they see the need to.baroooskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135048606474430019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post-15673810262192010332007-07-11T07:49:00.000-07:002007-07-11T07:49:00.000-07:00But should people be similarly discomforted that C...But should people be similarly discomforted that Coke outsells Faygo 10-to-1? Of course not! Radio markets are a commercial enterprise. In the US there remains enough capitalism that the market is still susceptible to supply and demand.<BR/><BR/>Or is there something special about political speech, rather than pop music, that the government should regulate it such that non-commercially-successful radio talk should be given more airtime than it can win on its own?Tom Gagnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11466965984472091709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post-52260343367630412652007-07-10T11:30:00.000-07:002007-07-10T11:30:00.000-07:00I'm curious what you found in my article that was ...<I>I'm curious what you found in my article that was hyperbole.</I><BR/><BR/>Following is the definition of "hyperbole"<BR/> <BR/>Obvious and intentional exaggeration<BR/><BR/>Your blog contains this item<BR/><BR/><I>Liberals' idea of fairness has to do with force-feeding more liberal doctrine on radio audiences than listeners have otherwise tuned-in to. But if they really wanted to be fair, as the doctrine's name suggests, why wouldn't they insist on equal time for socialists and libertarians as they demand for Democrats? What about the Green Party, Communist Party, or Worker's Party?</I><BR/><BR/>Currently, there are ten hours of conservative talk for every one hour of liberal talk on talk radio. Without getting into the tedious arguments about why this imbalance exists, I think most reasonable people would be troubled by this. This is why some observers have suggested that the radio industry should be re-regulated. (Remember it was a very regulated industry for 70 years until the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) Your suggestion that in order to correct this imbalance "we need to provide time for Green Party, Communist Party, or Workers Party" is disingenuous and an example of hyperbolebaroooskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135048606474430019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17391593.post-90519105235946509232007-07-09T10:35:00.000-07:002007-07-09T10:35:00.000-07:00I'm curious what you found in my article that was ...I'm curious what you found in my article that was hyperbole. My article had more to do with capitalism than communism, and that the fairness doctrine, as democrats have described it, proscribes liberal commentary as an antidote to conservative talk radio rather than equal exposure to any of America's other political parties.Tom Gagnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11466965984472091709noreply@blogger.com