KharmaTrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-23-10 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #96 |
| 99. Billy Tauzin Ran The Show... |
|
You are correct that by the time Dereg '96, it began with small bites in the late 80s and the NAB kept pushing for more and more. Tauzin was their guy...even changed parties during this all to keep his seniority and get things pushed through. The broadcast ownership had begun in '91 when the FCC (not Congress) eliminated the duopoly laws from the 40s that opened the floodgates for more and more.
You are correct that Telcom '96 was done primarily by Congress (The Commerce committee) as it was part of a far larger bill (telephone and cable dereg as well), but my point was that the original dereg began at the FCC and, as you properly state, under a lot of pressure from the NAB. We would joke that the FCC was a wholy owned subsidiary of the NAB. Eddie Fritz, who ran the NAB got a nice paycheck from the large corporates...he's the man I blame for destroying radio along with Tauzin.
In the grand scheme of things, hate radio is not the most popular format...it fills the void for the lack of local programming. Most hate radio stations rate poorly compared to other formats but it's cheap to hook up a satellite and let rushbo or some other asshat rant...no musical royalties or payroll.
My point has been that it's not Fairness that's the issue...it's the access and as long as the public airwaves remain a domain of a handful of large corporates who determine what people hear and support and are trying to profit from the venom that is spewed daily on the AM dial.
Thank you for your insight...very impressive.
Cheers...
|
| -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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread