You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #22: I Never Hide In The Shadows On This Issue...It's Not "Fairness"...It's Acess [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. I Never Hide In The Shadows On This Issue...It's Not "Fairness"...It's Acess
I worked with the Fairness Doctrine...it only covered mandated Public Affairs shows (that were "de-regulated" away in the 90s) and to assure stations offer all candidates access for their campaign advertising and doing it at the lowest station rate. Today broadcasters make windfalls on elections...especially now as 527s and PACs are sure to flood the airwaves this fall.

The problem is access. 91% of "conventional radio" features hate talk...with almost every one of those stations owned by a handful of corporates. Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, Salem and CBS dominate the most powerful signals and they decide what you hear. Clear Channel owns Premier, Rushbo's network and a very major reason his show pops up on every market across the country.

Talk radio has never been covered by any sort of "fairness". It's considered "Entertainment" (why Rushbo calls himself one). When you start to determine fairness, then you have to ask who decides what's fair. A slippery slope.

The FCC needs to revisit, drastically revise or repeal Telcom '96 that turned the public airwaves into a private plantation and to encourage local ownership and content...or wait until these "too big to fail" eventually go bankrupt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Should the Fairness Doctrine be brought back? cynatnite  Apr-21-10 02:01 PM   #0 
  - I'd love to know WHY someone would vote no.  Donnachaidh   Apr-21-10 02:03 PM   #1 
  - I voted yes, but the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable anyway  DJ13   Apr-21-10 02:05 PM   #2 
  - actually, the FCC did include the FD in its rules for cable  onenote   Apr-21-10 02:52 PM   #38 
  - Ah ... but the fairness doctrine could cover it. It's a matter of political will.  wolfgangmo   Apr-21-10 03:13 PM   #50 
  - It's sort of ironic that you are taking such an aggressive tone  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:10 PM   #3 
  - aggressive? For asking WHY?  Donnachaidh   Apr-21-10 02:17 PM   #6 
     - You're right.  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:18 PM   #8 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-21-10 02:20 PM   #10 
           - zipplewrath summed it up well.  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:22 PM   #12 
              - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Apr-21-10 02:24 PM   #16 
  - Shadows?  zipplewrath   Apr-21-10 02:15 PM   #5 
  - okay -- that's a good point. That was my whole purpose of asking why.  Donnachaidh   Apr-21-10 02:19 PM   #9 
  - I'd love to know WHY someone would think that.  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:23 PM   #14 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-21-10 02:25 PM   #17 
  - And yours?  zipplewrath   Apr-21-10 02:26 PM   #20 
  - Ed Schultz went into it the other night - 90% of the radio waves has conservative talk radio  Donnachaidh   Apr-21-10 02:29 PM   #27 
     - I'd venture a bet that 90 percent is a huge exaggeration  onenote   Apr-21-10 02:57 PM   #41 
     - he was talking about talk radio  Donnachaidh   Apr-21-10 03:08 PM   #46 
        - saying 90 percent of talk radio is conservative is a much different thing than  onenote   Apr-21-10 03:17 PM   #52 
           - that's what he was saying. n/t  Donnachaidh   Apr-21-10 03:37 PM   #65 
     - Not it the larger context  zipplewrath   Apr-22-10 07:52 AM   #83 
  - Its not asking why that is the problem, it is how it was asked,  yawnmaster   Apr-21-10 02:28 PM   #26 
  - I don't see how that would be remotely constitutional  NoNothing   Apr-21-10 02:21 PM   #11 
  - Was it unconstitutional the first time?  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 02:23 PM   #15 
  - It was only federally regulated public airwaves last time.  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:25 PM   #18 
  - I don't think the internet needs to be involved  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 02:26 PM   #21 
  - Fox is on cable.  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:28 PM   #25 
     - You may be right about the legality, but the net effect is a disaster  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 02:34 PM   #31 
        - Perhaps...  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:38 PM   #33 
           - You're right. Nobody believes Fox.  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 02:39 PM   #34 
              - Which in the circle of life  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:48 PM   #35 
                 - Not according to your understanding of what's constitutional  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 02:49 PM   #36 
                    - Huh? My understanding?  daylan b   Apr-21-10 02:54 PM   #40 
                       - While I hate to borrow a right-wing talking point  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 02:59 PM   #42 
                          - If it's not constitutional, it's not constitutional  daylan b   Apr-21-10 03:04 PM   #45 
                          - You may enjoy our final slide into Orwellian disinformation and dystopia  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 03:08 PM   #47 
                             - What would make you say such a thing?  daylan b   Apr-21-10 03:10 PM   #48 
                                - If you believe that the Constitution enforces the destruction of America  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 03:24 PM   #56 
                                   - Really? How petty do you want to get?  daylan b   Apr-21-10 03:29 PM   #62 
                                   - I haven't been going after you at all.  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 03:34 PM   #63 
                                   - Defending and discussing are two completely different things.  daylan b   Apr-21-10 03:35 PM   #64 
                          - I have no problem borrowing from a progressive talking point  onenote   Apr-21-10 03:11 PM   #49 
  - How would it "not be constitutional"  wolfgangmo   Apr-21-10 03:19 PM   #54 
     - by your reasoning, newspapers and the internet could be regulated as well  onenote   Apr-21-10 03:27 PM   #60 
     - Have you read a summary of the Red Lion case?  daylan b   Apr-21-10 03:27 PM   #61 
  - No  NoNothing   Apr-21-10 02:25 PM   #19 
  - Corporate media already disseminates info based on their business interests  fascisthunter   Apr-21-10 02:27 PM   #23 
  - With this court, neither do I  zipplewrath   Apr-21-10 02:28 PM   #24 
     - oh jayzus  paulsby   Apr-21-10 02:51 PM   #37 
        - Actually, I haven't  zipplewrath   Apr-22-10 07:59 AM   #84 
           - among other things  paulsby   Apr-22-10 12:54 PM   #85 
              - One of the excesses to which I refered  zipplewrath   Apr-22-10 01:15 PM   #86 
                 - i wasn't referring to the EU as a central authority  paulsby   Apr-22-10 01:36 PM   #87 
                    - It ain't all that limited  zipplewrath   Apr-22-10 01:43 PM   #88 
                       - that's where we disagree  paulsby   Apr-22-10 01:47 PM   #89 
                          - A combination of things  zipplewrath   Apr-22-10 02:08 PM   #91 
                             - well yes. you are correct  paulsby   Apr-22-10 02:16 PM   #92 
                                - Well, until Wheat  zipplewrath   Apr-22-10 02:33 PM   #93 
                                   - it is definitely a classic example of two things i despise  paulsby   Apr-22-10 02:37 PM   #94 
  - What we really need is for our airwaves not to be polluted with 24/7 propaganda  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 02:22 PM   #13 
  - I Never Hide In The Shadows On This Issue...It's Not "Fairness"...It's Acess  KharmaTrain   Apr-21-10 02:27 PM   #22 
  - what is a "conventional radio" station?  onenote   Apr-21-10 03:51 PM   #66 
  - Definition:  KharmaTrain   Apr-21-10 06:21 PM   #74 
     - while much, if not most conservative radio  paulsby   Apr-22-10 04:51 PM   #95 
     - The Equivelency Game...  KharmaTrain   Apr-23-10 12:29 AM   #100 
        - i agree with what you say  paulsby   Apr-23-10 01:57 AM   #101 
     - so we agree that 90 percent of "conventional" radio is not rw talk  onenote   Apr-22-10 10:53 PM   #96 
        - Billy Tauzin Ran The Show...  KharmaTrain   Apr-23-10 12:19 AM   #99 
  - Few people understand how these policies were implemented, thanks.  bunkerbuster1   Apr-21-10 06:24 PM   #75 
  - You're absolutely right!  bluethruandthru   Apr-22-10 01:48 PM   #90 
  - Because it's not the government's job to enforce  Ter   Apr-21-10 07:01 PM   #78 
  - Both "sides" of the same Corporate Story doesn't cut it either.  harun   Apr-21-10 02:11 PM   #4 
  - After REAGAN the saint of the GOP deleted it  Bitwit1234   Apr-21-10 02:18 PM   #7 
  - the pro-corporate types would rather see corporations disseminating whatever info they want  fascisthunter   Apr-21-10 02:29 PM   #28 
  - There's an actual matter of principle you know  NoNothing   Apr-21-10 02:33 PM   #29 
  - No - not every issue has two rational sides.  iris27   Apr-21-10 02:33 PM   #30 
  - Yes, I do want them to have equal time and to out themselves.  EFerrari   Apr-21-10 03:01 PM   #43 
     - the FD didn't require "equal" time  onenote   Apr-21-10 03:16 PM   #51 
        - A thousand cuts is how we got exactly *here*  EFerrari   Apr-21-10 03:20 PM   #55 
  - I voted yes ....  gleaner   Apr-21-10 02:38 PM   #32 
  - The fairness doctrine really isn't the problem.  Sebastian Doyle   Apr-21-10 02:53 PM   #39 
  - I agree  Johonny   Apr-21-10 03:18 PM   #53 
  - God, that would be wonderful!  FiveGoodMen   Apr-21-10 04:02 PM   #69 
  - YES.  Dr Morbius   Apr-21-10 06:30 PM   #76 
  - I'm afraid it would just purpetuate the Postmodernist relativist "that's just your opinion" thinking  Odin2005   Apr-21-10 03:03 PM   #44 
  - Yes. Conservatives have used the idea of "balance"  Radical Activist   Apr-21-10 03:27 PM   #59 
  - I voted no because it isn't a solution  Spike89   Apr-21-10 03:25 PM   #57 
  - No. We don't need government regulation of speech.  Radical Activist   Apr-21-10 03:25 PM   #58 
  - You think more wealthy owners will produce news that wont be aimed at making them wealthier?  Oregone   Apr-21-10 04:07 PM   #70 
     - Its only censorship now because a few companies control all information outlets,  Radical Activist   Apr-21-10 04:57 PM   #71 
        - Information is being presented to boost the diverse portfolios of owners  Oregone   Apr-21-10 06:19 PM   #73 
           - Right. And...  Radical Activist   Apr-21-10 08:16 PM   #81 
  - HELL...  Hubert Flottz   Apr-21-10 03:52 PM   #67 
  - yes  guitar man   Apr-21-10 04:02 PM   #68 
  - I voted no because media consolidation is a much greater problem.  nemo137   Apr-21-10 05:14 PM   #72 
  - .  onestepforward   Apr-21-10 06:38 PM   #77 
  - HELL YES.  BreweryYardRat   Apr-21-10 07:31 PM   #79 
  - The Fairness Doctrine is not about shutting up the right wingers  NecklyTyler   Apr-21-10 07:38 PM   #80 
  - Hannity and Colmes coming up next, followed by  Radical Activist   Apr-21-10 08:24 PM   #82 
  - Until you find a large audience that cares about what's true and what's not....  BlooInBloo   Apr-22-10 10:56 PM   #97 
  - It *might* inhibit some of the nonstop lying.  moondust   Apr-22-10 11:10 PM   #98 
  - Stern moved from broadcast to satellite. And, he was cheered for it.  cherokeeprogressive   Apr-23-10 02:33 AM   #102 
  - Five years ago, I might have said "No", but not anymore.  DailyGrind51   Apr-23-10 06:06 AM   #103 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC