Fairness Doctrine

[concrete]

I think its time that a discussion of the outright lies that eminate from GOP Talk Radio is begun. GOP Talk Radio has gone beyond being some sort of entertainment phenom and has evolved into a political organization in it's right, that spreads the spectrum from local political operatives to national political operative "hosts".

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811060005?f=h_latest

These haters and liars have had a profound, and largely negative impact on our electoral process. It is no accident that 23% of Texas thinks Barack is a Muslim. They spent the entire campaign pushing that an other crap, and like Limbaugh in the opening example, routinely trot out the most base lies and dress them up as truth, which is then disseminated to the rest of our media and to the Internet.

Myself, I think it is time to return to the Fairness Doctrine. If these hacks had provided factual information to support their views in a thoughtful way, I would not think it was necessary, but they do not. They spew a stream of lies. Yesterday I was told by my local radio fascist, Pat Gray, that Obama "advocated a global tax" and that the "UN has been against the United States since it was founded", both bare faced and ridiculous lies. If they are going to persist in it, we need a method where the lies can be refuted immediately on the same media, so our elections can be over issues instead of the wasting of immense time refuting morons who push ridiculous lies like this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811040019?f=h_latest

[Horsefish]

I think its time that a discussion of the outright lies that eminate from GOP Talk Radio is begun. GOP Talk Radio has gone beyond being some sort of entertainment phenom and has evolved into a political organization in it's right, that spreads the spectrum from local political operatives to national political operative "hosts".

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811060005?f=h_latest

These haters and liars have had a profound, and largely negative impact on our electoral process. It is no accident that 23% of Texas thinks Barack is a Muslim. They spent the entire campaign pushing that an other crap, and like Limbaugh in the opening example, routinely trot out the most base lies and dress them up as truth, which is then disseminated to the rest of our media and to the Internet.

Myself, I think it is time to return to the Fairness Doctrine. If these hacks had provided factual information to support their views in a thoughtful way, I would not think it was necessary, but they do not. They spew a stream of lies. Yesterday I was told by my local radio fascist, Pat Gray, that Obama "advocated a global tax" and that the "UN has been against the United States since it was founded", both bare faced and ridiculous lies. If they are going to persist in it, we need a method where the lies can be refuted immediately on the same media, so our elections can be over issues instead of the wasting of immense time refuting morons who push ridiculous lies like this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811040019?f=h_latest


:dito::dito: Exactly right. The poison and propaganda that is spewed out by these people is one of the largest factors that divides our nation today. They eliminate what used to be debate on issues and dictate doctrine only.

You have to think about who their listeners are. Truck drivers who are trapped in their vehicles for hours and can only listen to the strongest radio stations in the area. The under educated who love to hear that somebody is dumber than they are. These guys are always saying that very successful senators and members of the house of representatives are stupid and idiots. How do you think that those people got there in the first place? Is it because they are stupid? Are Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, so much smarter than the rest of us that we should bow down and believe everything that they say? This is classic propaganda that borders on the propaganda that brought Nazi Germany to power in the 1930's.

These "Talk show Hosts" need to be counter acted or at least restricted to being able to factually back up their comments and claims. They are a perfect example of how the educated uses the uneducated and uniformed to advance their motives.

[aiki14]

I am gonna disagree, I don't think we should be censoring in any way what people say on the radio or television. I agree that Limbaugh and Hannity are putting forth an agenda and their comments are of a mendacious nature, but I just think you leave it out there. Sunlight is the best antiseptic.
For every Limbaugh there should be an Olberman, but we should be careful not to adopt practices that continue to support the diametrical positions but to bring about the type of change that might allow moderate positions to become viable.

[concrete]

On the one hand I for one hope Limbaugh and Hannity continue to become more acerbic, more vitriolic, and more outrageous in their rants against Obama. It will become repellent to all but the most bigoted and idiotic among us, making the real bozos of whom we should be afraid, very easy to spot. On the other hand I haven’t forgotten that more than half of American voters chose to retain a mass-murderer in the WH in '04. I don’t have as much faith that the "most bigoted and idiotic among us" are actually a minority...

I don’t want to go Clockwork Orange on people and force feed a message. After all, the only thing worse than propaganda is gov’t propaganda. But, The public owns the airwaves, not the broadcasters. The public has a right to hear all sides of the issues, especially given the level of outright lies emanating from the right wing on the broadcast spectrum. If you want a monopoly on opinion, that can easily be done by setting up a cable station, which is the true "private enterprise" most long for. But the broadcast spectrum is public property and one must obtain a license to use it from the government. It's about time the license required truth and balance.

What Limbaugh and Hannity are doing is not that different than other illegal activities, like inciting to riot, or to commit hate crimes. I am not really sure he has a right to disseminate his depraved ideas over the public's radio bandwidth as the bulk of his message is really not something for kids to hear. Kind of like Howard Stern is "pay for the privilege to hear his voice and ideas" because it is deemed inappropriate for public airing, so is Rush. Hate and polarization are far worse than toilet humor for a kid to hear.

Right wing hate radio is essentially using public property, the airwaves, to get out one side of the argument. I have no problem with his right to disseminate bullshit, what I do have a problem with is the fact corporate America has figured out a way to propagandize the public. I travel all over the US, and I can fly out of one city, land in another 1,000 miles away, and find that the local AM radio fascist is talking about the same exact thing, pushing the same exact disinformation, which is spun exactly as the guy I was listening too a few hours ago in Houston was spinning it. This is not opinion, it is an organized operation with a goal of presenting one viewpoint only. We need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine on the broadcast spectrum to remedy this crap.

[bigzip]

The problem is WHO decides what is fair? Hannity and Rush may be disgusting, but you have the right not to listen and advertisers have the right to pull the ads. What happened to Air america? I think they went bankrupt. If there is a market for untruthful hate filled vitriol, so what? It will exist as long as money can be made from it. I wish the fairness doctrine applied to the nightly news and all the info they don't report, but the fact is you hear what corporate america wants you to hear and not much else.

[GDFLS]

I am gonna disagree, I don't think we should be censoring in any way what people say on the radio or television. I agree that Limbaugh and Hannity are putting forth an agenda and their comments are of a mendacious nature, but I just think you leave it out there. Sunlight is the best antiseptic.
For every Limbaugh there should be an Olberman, but we should be careful not to adopt practices that continue to support the diametrical positions but to bring about the type of change that might allow moderate positions to become viable.

I agree 100%

If you don't like what these guys say, turn off the radio and if there is a market for the other side then it will be.

[GDFLS]

The problem is WHO decides what is fair? Hannity and Rush may be disgusting, but you have the right not to listen and advertisers have the right to pull the ads. What happened to Air america? I think they went bankrupt. If there is a market for untruthful hate filled vitriol, so what? It will exist as long as money can be made from it. I wish the fairness doctrine applied to the nightly news and all the info they don't report, but the fact is you hear what corporate america wants you to hear and not much else.

I think this is pretty much on point...so long as there is a market for somting it will be around.

[GDFLS]

We need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine on the broadcast spectrum to remedy this crap.

I am sorry, but I just don't agree and I don't even listen to 'regular' radio anymore.

The free market should determine what programs stay and which go, this can be done by consumer advocates contacting sponsors of programs they do not like.

I am not sure how many more times we have to lean that government isn't the answer, it is the problem. But I fear we will find this out a lot more in the years to come.

[concrete]

Let me put this simply: the public is the landlord. Some here claim the renter's have the right to tell the landlord what he can and cannot do with his own property. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. The concept is simple: by law, the public is the owner of the broadcast spectrum. Congress Elected represents the public. They are the landlord, they charge rent and they make the rules. If you don't like the rent or don't like the rules, then build your own house. But get ready, cause the Democrat Congress is soon to write a new lease.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=395&page=367

The problem is that the RIGHT to ACCESS is not guaranteed under the current schema. That is the argument. And with the Communications Act of 1996, much monopoly of the industry began. We are now in an industry where ONE company owns 30% of ALL outlets and 68% of all major market outlets. That controls costs and controls access, both to frequencies [due to allocation issues] and contracts [due to competition clauses from syndicates].

I really think there are two things that folks are concerned about. To me, both have value but one is protected [to a degree].

First, everyone should have ACCESS to the Public Airwaves. That is simply not possible right now because the major markets are owned by Clearchannel, CBS, Cidadel, Cumulus, Entercom, Westwood One, and Cox. The only new kid on the block of size is SiriusXM. These companies hold 80% of the market, and virtually ALL the major market stations. ClearChannel, as an example holds 30% of ALL US radio Stations 1300/4250.

The second issue is hate speech. That is something that really needs addressed but it should not be addressed by something like fairness doctrine 2. It is going to have to be a generational change that stops the kind of spewing that resulted in much of the hate generation that spiked in the months prior to the election [and still continue to some degree]. While, according to the SCOTUS hate speech is not protected speech, in broadcasting is falls under a very odd umbrella that allows it to continue. I am of the opinion that that is not a reasonable issue to address on the broadcasting level.

When you narrow down to the talk radio niche, ClearChannel [which wholly owns Premiere which syndicates Limbaugh] holds 86% of the market and have a firm policy of NOT competing against themselves. And therein lies the problem.

In the broadcast medium, after deregulation, market no longer determines success. Much success in broadcasting at this point in time is due to market saturation by single corporate owners who buy up the entire market and then schedule based on a non compete scheduling. In other words, on talk stations when ClearChannel or Cumulus owns both of the stations in town, they won't put contra programs against the syndicated program that buys into 250 markets.

Nobody has asked for equal time, nobody has demanded that THEY get on air or the "other guy" should leave. The entire concern is that, right now there is not EQUAL ACCESS. Not equal time, JUST access. That is fully lacking in most major markets.

It's way past time for a Teddy Roosevelt-style dismantling of the Clear Channel monopoly. Competition isn't in their business interest, but it is clearly in the public interest. We don't need to limit free exchange of ideas, even stupid ones; we need to enable it. Standard Oil distorted the marketplace; Clear Channel distorts the First Amendment.

There's that little term. "Public Airwaves". Now tell me, suppose all the public parks in this country were rented by the Nazi Party.......

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg85/concretisttexas/clearchannel.jpg

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg85/concretisttexas/clearchannel1.jpg