Talk talk talk

When Air America can’t get a listener ratting higher than a * in the Arbitrons. Liberals/Progressives have to resort to legislation to force people to listen to liberal talk radio. Having ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,PBS,NPR is not enough for libs, they can not have ANY voice of opposition, see Chavez on free speech for Venezuela

Thank God for George W. Bush.

Oh my goodiness I was wrong! This is heresay leaked via Inhofe by Carl Rove to discredit Hillary and Barbara Boxer. What am I thinking?

Censorship of the American people; they aready removed our rights to vote in these last two fraudulant elections. What a beautiful Right-Wing religious corporate militaristic fanatic Bushie world it is! Yehaw! Yup Yup Yup. When is he going back to Crawford, Texas? And by the way no more Texas Presidents, two Bushes and a Johnson are enough for the next few hundred years.

Inhofe is a prevaricator to say the least. No thousand word Limbaughesque essay will change this fact.

The audio of Inhofe seems to have been removed. At least we still get the picture: http://thumbsnap.com/v/Mm1Q5d9X.jpg

Wow! Quite a lot of hyperventilating on both ends of the ideological scale.
First, full disclosure here. I am an unapologetic conservative with a few relatives who are very liberal, but who consider themselves "independent." I'll get back to them in a minute.
Since the liberal hierarchy may or may not be (but I doubt it...almost certain to backfire badly) more interested in reviving this doctrine than just idle chit chat, let's assume that they are for the sake of argument.
What too many on here seem to not understand is exactly what this "Fairness Doctrine" amounts to historically and practically.
The Fairness Doctrine, which was finally discarded under executive order by (cue boos) Ronald Reagan, was originally a way for government to regulate broadcasting content by specifying that any media outlet with one viewpoint also at least give an opportunity for the opposite viewpoint to be aired.
This didn't necessarily mean that they could find someone willing or able to do so, and often one side or the other's initial view went unchallenged.
Logistically, what this meant for a given broadcast outlet was that it became ever more difficult and costly to air a political program.
It was a logistical nightmare because they would have to arrange for a rebuttal, including all the headaches of making a contact and scanning his rebuttal which would necessitate it being a written response, to ensure that the response wasn't just some guy trying to slip in an agreement instead of the government regulated opposition.
This would (at least initially) have made responses slow, clumsy, and probably unentertaining to put it mildly.
Perhaps later on, they could have a one-on-one political discussion, but not before a true liberal vs. conservative commentator bonafide had been established.
So, one strike against the doctrine was that it was awkward, difficult, and expensive to implement.
The other problem that too many are overlooking is probably even more troubling: Exactly WHO determines whether someone passes a political litmus test that will somehow stand up to scrutiny?
Ruminate on that one for a while.
It should also be pointed out that historically, since the advent of FM radio drawing away former AM listeners for music due to FM and its inherent sound quality advantage, AM was left with little more than sports, news, and talk for broadcasting content.
And, as anyone knows who has listened a little to NPR or a sports only radio station, there is only so much of the first two AM contents that an intellectually curious individual will want to listen to.
So, with AM already taking a major hit from the loss of music listeners, and with this fairness doctrine encroaching on the one really interesting area of their broadcast day, AM was dying the death of a thousand cuts.
I remember it myself, thinking back to when I was a young kid getting an AM/FM radio for christmas and wondering why the manufacturer even bothered adding AM capability to a radio at all.
AM was stale, sounded as if they were talking to the listener with a string can phone, and faded out whenever dad drove under a highway overpass.
Then something changed.
The fairness doctrine was overturned, and something remarkable happened.
There was no longer a government eye peering over the broadcaster shoulder to decide if that broadcaster kept his license.
The broadcasters being broadcasters and not a charity case, sought out talent who could earn them money to make up for all those years of steady decline and sometimes ruination.
Most AM broadcasters were uninterested in talent who merely agreed with their ownership and management politically.
No sir, this was about staying on the air long enough to attract an audience that would grow rather than dwindle away.
A growing audience made the AM advertising salesmen very happy by making it easier to find sponsors.
And, as that audience continued to expand, the rates charged would be adjusted accordingly.
An expanding audience means not just more salesmen, but it also means more employees need to be hired to handle all this new business, and thus more jobs.
Fancy that, a marketing success story.
On the flip side of the coin, there were still a few broadcasters who took the opportunity to have their talent reflect their views only.
Some of these still exist, especially in enclaves with a large population receptive to the station's views.
Some of this second set of stations were strictly conservative, while (often the majority) were decidely liberal.
Some of this second set of stations succeeded, while many failed, often as not due to a one-dimensional mindset.

Now, let's fast forward to the latter and early halves of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, respectively.
There are still a (very) few very liberal stations out there that aren't Air America affiliates, even here in the midwest.
Meanwhile, stations who gave their audience what they wanted instead of having it dictated to them have suddenly scene their fortunes reversed in a positive direction.
If a station means to appeal to an audience base who wants to listen to conservative talk, then they have that right.
Likewise, a more left leaning station can seek out an audience who agrees with them.
But the important thing to remember here is that any station - whatever its owner/management philosophy may be - trying to conjure an audience out of thin air will find it increasingly difficult to do business, and will turn off their tower after its owner's life savings has been expended.

Now, what would be the upshot of reimplementing this so called doctrine?
It should be obvious what this would do to AM radio.
But what about the other media?
Remember them?
Well, FM talk would be even more of an interesting problem.
Here is the realm of morning drive time comedy teams and shock jokes with potential government regulation of political views.
This means parodies, callers, and even idle side comments from the hosts could be under the regulatory eye.
But who decides which gets regulated, and how?
Does anyone honestly believe this could be done?
If so, wouldn't it be fair to say that this would cause the often liberal friendly (hi, Howard Stern) FM talkers to go absolutely ballistic?
Can you say backlash?
And what about TV?
Keith Olberman, Lou Dobbs, and Chris Matthews would each have to get his own Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neal Cavuto for rebuttals.
Yes, Hannity already has Alan Colmes, so he makes the grade already, but that also gives him an early regulatory advantage.
Oh, wait, they are cable, so they probably would not have to do that since they aren't technically broadcast over the free airwaves.
Well, our all concerned legislators could change that too, right?
And, if they didn't change it, Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulis might have a bit of a problem on their hands.
Suddenly, it is no longer fair when it becomes a case of YOUR oxe getting gored.
Since print media aren't in the broadcast arena, they would have extra news and (unfettered) debate stories about what a total mess the feds have made of the formally free broadcast marketplace of ideas.
If a conservative wants to say something over the airwaves and get paid to do it, then let him makes his case, and he will succeed.
And, if a liberal wants to do likewise, that is his right as well.
And, as for the government having content oversight; I say no, thanks!
Let the listeners decide what they want, then let those willing to give that those listeners be rewarded for their efforts.
If you can easily afford it, and you want a Firebird, you don't buy a Yugo.

Oh, remember my liberal relatives I mentioned earlier?
Keep in mind that conservatives aren't the only ones who often tend to listen to those who agree with them.
When I go to see my liberal relatives, the ONLY magazines I see by their couches are Sojourner, and the only radio they listen to is NPR.
I'm not sure about what they like on the tube, other than entertainment.
I love them dearly, but I generally avoid political discussions except vaguely and politely with them.

But, here is something that should trouble anyone who hears it:
During the 1980s, I actually heard one of these relatives state that the U.S. built the Berlin Wall.
That's not a typo there, folks.
And, she was completely flabbergasted when it was explained to her that the USSR was the nation who built and maintained it even as we discussed it.
She was an intellegent and educated woman, but where did such a complete falsehood originate?
But, my relative being an intelligent person who loved her family as much as we loved her, at least seemed to accept the truth when she was finally confronted with it.
Conservative radio listeners are often accused of being rendered out of touch by their radio pied pipers, and some may well be, but I doubt even many liberals have accepted such a monumental lie as my dear departed relative believed.

There is a Clinton history on silencing and demonizing people who disagree with them. Whether it is stealing peoples FBI records to use unsupported stories against their opponents: http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/23/fbi.files/
Using the IRS to audit people who make accusations against them: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14702
Or selectively targeting churches and conservative groups who speak out against them: http://www.texemarrs.com/121998/irsmuz.htm
It is how they, and their army of private investigators work. And now, all you "geniuses" who say Rush listeners don't think want to give these people every single Americans health records! Are you crazy? I can hear "Shrillery" now. "Oh look, Bill, this opponent of ours had an abortion, and that one had VD back when he was in college." Here's a little article on how HRC operates.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, " A Woman in Charge," Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present "comprehensive" health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton's purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.

Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:

"No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would 'demonize' members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration's plan or otherwise stand in its way."

Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, "with disgust and distrust." Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.

Radio is already regulated. That's because the radio spectrum is a finite resource owned by the American people.

There is no free speech on radio except for the the billion dollar corporations who own the stations. They can spend all day telling you what to think. Especially telling you that this is a "free speech issue".

Do not do anything. We still have freedom of speech, you may like what they say, but they have a right to speak.

It is my fervent hope that Americans do not elect Hillary as President. They were dumb enough to elect her husband not once but twice and I hope they have smartened up since then.

A gossips happened 3 years ago. How can this be report as news?

If you don't like what's on talk radio, turn it off. It's that simple. Talk radio doesn't need to be legislated. Period. Shame on you Trent Lott and anyone else who agrees with your statements about talk radio.

Tam (Jun 23, 2007 4:38:34 AM) - "Our politcians are not for the people anymore... they are for.... who knows.."

Tam: they are for anything which will keep themselves in power and make us more dependant on them. This is very easy to verify. Any program which creates more government bureaucracy
and more control by the government is a perfect example. This give them more control over our lives, which requires more people within the government to control and regulate the program (taking away yet another freedom), thus making us more dependant on the government (I think they call it Socialism). National Health Care is a perfect example of this. This takes away our freedom (to choose our own health care providers), gives the government more power, and thus helps those in power more powerful. Keep an eye open for these types of programs (that take away our liberties), and watch out for catch phrases like "for the good of all the people". The hair on your neck should stand up when you hear this, and standby to have yet another liberty taken away.

Jeff

AHHHHHHHHhhhhhh; where's the ACLU????? Now if this was supposedly said about a liberal talk show there would be outrage. Now if it were said about a gay/lesbian, Latino, black, or any other ethnic talk radio show there would be near riots and you could bet your bippy that Jesse, Al and the rest of the gang would be all over it. I don't know if this was said or not but if a conversation between two conservative GOP members supposedly happened and they were being accused by a liberal senator you could bet that there would be outrage. Well, so far I don’t like any of the candidates, I’m waiting for Fred. I really feel he is the only one who has what it takes to pull this country out of the hole it’s digging it’s self into.

Posted by: Dave | Jun 23, 2007 2:58:55 AM

Hey, Dave tell me all you know about big Freddie. Let me know what your true feelings are. Do you think you can elaborate a bit? Be specific and detailed if possible. Love to hear it. Doubt you will. Prove me wrong Daveo. I doubt you know much about the guy. But sell me on the Hollywood elitist.

Talk radio is another source of free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Need I say more? Regulated it? Herr Geobbels must be dancing in his grave. Ya, let's make it propaganda, mein fuhrer. Just say nice things about our leaders. How can we boast we are a free society when talk radio may be regulated by the very people talk radio gets off offending. This smacks of killing the messenger for the message is not liked by those who fear the free message. Most talk radio is crap, but it's OUR crap; leave it be, or next, it will be our telephones that will be regulated -- oh, I'm too late!

The current Congress has been attempting to take away our Freedom of Speech since the beginning of the year, but due to a tremendous outcry by the voters, the House and Senate were both foiled!! They don't want the American public to know how they vote on issues that impact us, and they are wanting to restrict information that we receive on important issues. Our Freedom of Speech is under attack by those we elected to represent us. Looks like they are wanting to become a secret society. We should be very frightened by their attempted actions. Let your representatives know how you feel - it's the only way we may be able to keep our basic rights.

How do we all consume all this info,right or left? It seems easy to me and my small mind. whatever the Polition is blabbing... go the other way. It is unfortunate that it has come to this in our lifetimes but, i hate to be the bearer of bad news. Our politcians are not for the people anymore... they are for.... who knows..
WELL I'm for America and I hope you are too. I hope you,, anyone reading this will vote for what is really in the BEST interest of every "American". Do we really need 10, 20 or 30 million people to do the jobs "people won't do"? Do we need the 10's of MILLIONS of ILLIGALS to bring thier extended families here as well? Do the math, That could be 10,20,50,100 million people flooding our country,,, I really don't care who they are... I just see what is happening NOW in my small community. Our school districts can't buy books, our hospitals are going broke, our jails are full, cities are going broke and our streets are in shambles..... what sence does it make to open our boarders to whoever wants to come in? I think we need to slow things down and step back,,, If this were your money,(which it is)do you want to spend more on free houseing,medical,prisons,education.. I don't... I work all my life,work with my kids to do their best so they can advance to the best colleges. Save money to pay for it and plan for the future,,, The whole time our polititions will hand over in state tuitions to Illigal's. I will work my whole life pay my taxes and ss taxes and hope to survive at retirement... Yet someone from another country can come here,l get a house or apartment to live in, free medical,schooling and food stamps. Is this fair? Is there a country on this planet that I can retire to and get all these benifits? The answer is absolutely NOT A CHANCE.What are our elected officals really up to? That is what we need to know. I truely beleive they are no longer for the people. The only way we can make a change is to VOTE... And to vote new blood into congress and our senate... So, I suggest to vote for the underdog,,, get the old blood out.Lets see if we can Totally shift the house,senate even the whitehouse,,,, retire the lifers in our government... the only way we are going to have change is to change our leadership,,,,
I want to hope and believe it will happen...
Thanks... An American

AHHHHHHHHhhhhhh; where's the ACLU????? Now if this was supposedly said about a liberal talk show there would be outrage. Now if it were said about a gay/lesbian, Latino, black, or any other ethnic talk radio show there would be near riots and you could bet your bippy that Jesse, Al and the rest of the gang would be all over it. I don't know if this was said or not but if a conversation between two conservative GOP members supposedly happened and they were being accused by a liberal senator you could bet that there would be outrage. Well, so far I don’t like any of the candidates, I’m waiting for Fred. I really feel he is the only one who has what it takes to pull this country out of the hole it’s digging it’s self into.

Is something preventing liberals from starting their own talk show?
I don't think so. Well, maybe their lack of talent.
So, why don't we call it for what it is? It's the democrats trying to control public opinion for the 2008 elections. And the only people agreeing on “>restricting talk<” radio are the liberal sheep who can’t form an intelligent thought.
Here is a little advice for you liberals. How do you turn off a liberal or conservative radio show? Tune out.