Not addressing the Fairness Doctrine has been the Dems major failure

[humblebum]

I have long felt that this single issue was a key to the success of all other Democratic initiatives for a very simple reason: talk radio is the most potent weapon of conservatism. For the last 20 years or so they have used it to their great advantage by shaping so many arguments into anything they have seen fit to do - without anyone or anything to stop them. Most recently, opposition to healthcare reform has been largely stoked through the medium of talk radio. Similarly, the major opposition to Clinton's Healthcare plan came through the same medium. But the issues haven't been limited to healthcare. All opposition to any liberal or Democratic plan has been presented, unopposed, over the airwaves on talk radio. These airwaves belong to the people and yet those same people are allowing neo-conservatism to operate without any similar competition.

The Internet can't even compete effectively with talk radio because its audience is so widely dispersed and that isn't the case for talk radio. The many listeners of talk radio are focused on just a handful of announcers, and so, many are getting the same messages at the same time, creating a huge groundswell of emotion and awareness (mob mentality), and voila! a movement is formed.

A new revised FD can address this and make the airwaves, once again, accessible to those who own them.

[mmonk]

1. I'm for it because I see the results of it being gone and media consolidation

every damn day.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. And, Rush Limbaugh is STILL given his time slot on Armed Forces Radio

It is almost as if the Dems WANT to be in the minority party as it gives them an excuse for not accomplishing a liberal agenda.

Limbaugh is LOW HANGING FRUIT and yet the Dem run Congress does nothing about it. What more do you need to know about the cajones of this Dem run Congress?

[NeeDeep]

3. Republican run corporations own the airwaves

and don't plan on giving up the propaganda portal. It's really all about them and their money and democrats are too kowtowed to do anything because their afraid of being labeled anti-free-speech. The propaganda mill of corporate consolidated media is gonna excise them one by one from power and turn goverment into its bitch....oh wait it already has!

[humblebum]

5. i consider anyone who opposes a new FD to be anti-free speech.

I also feel that the old FD needs to be updated so it does not curtail free speech by producing that "chilling effect" on station owners, which was the major complaint against it.

[morningglory]

61. In the '60's we had a wonderful Washington Week in Review, with animated

discussions, back and forth with humor and intelligence. Now it is all about everyone screaming at once.

[OHdem10]

4. I am not at all being sarcastic, in fact, I am being sincere, we

must develop Democratic Talkers who can draw an audience.

All the fairness doctrines in the world are meaningless
if you cannot pull in audience. This is a weakness
on the Democratic Side.

[humblebum]

6. I disagree. There are plenty of qualified talkers

who could compete very effectively. People like John Stewart,just one example, could do very well as talk radio hosts.

[mmonk]

12. The problem is not they don't draw audiences

but media consolidation. They draw well in markets they can get a foothold in. How do you think Ed Schultz was able to go from radio to both radio and television?

[MrsCorleone]

42. With all due respect, you have it all wrong. Large multinational industries

ensure that RW radio is well funded, regardless of how low the ratings in a particular market. Large industry only cares that their industry- friendly message gets out to the masses. That is why markets all across the nation are saturated with, in many cases, only RW talk radio even in heavily liberal regions.

In many counties, I'll find Rush on 2 or 3 stations in the same time slot. Why? And why do I hear so-called "public service" announcements on shows such as his claiming that high oil prices are good news for 401Ks or that credit unions are evil? These are just a couple of gems that I've heard. It's not too difficult to understand their intentions.

Then you have uber popular liberal talkers such as Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, etc beating the RW dolts in ratings in many markets, yet their shows are often yanked because they don't spew corporate PR. In some cases, a liberal show that is #1 in a market will get "switched" to a RW show that then falls to dead last in the ratings. Does the RW show get pulled? Nope. The reason why a poorly performing RW show remains is because it is far more beneficial monetarily to have the peeps confused and keep them rooting for big industry policies.

It's all about convincing the peeps to buy the big oil, big pharma, big finance lies. Large industry will do anything in order to maintain the multi billion $ gravy train and use the media to fight tooth & nail against policies that favor small businesses & and average American. It's really that simple.

[RyboSlybo]

7. I oppose the Fairness Doctrine

Or any other bill that limit's free speech...

I might disagree with every hate filled piece of propoganda streaming from talk radio...

However I would die for their right to say it...

As another poster mentioned we just need someone who can draw in an audiance... That's our problem.

Free Speech for the Win!

FREEDOM FOR THE WIN!

[humblebum]

8. The FD need not constrain nor silence anyone.

It's intended purpose must be to ensure fair competition over the airwaves and moreso - to guarantee that people are able to hear all sides of issues pertaining to their well-being. That simply is not happening now and that is nothing more than state-run radio spewing propaganda unopposed.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

20. The Fairness Doctrine worked well for over 40 years and its

demise allowed a very one sided medium to flourish. It is undemocratic and unAmerican to allow a medium that is so vital to the free exchange of ideas to be hijacked by any single group that is using it to advance their own agenda at the expense of democracy.

[Romulox]

27. There were 3 networks then. Now, hundreds. nt

[RyboSlybo]

28. Competition! Where is it? Why can't our side provide it?

In my mind this is where the issue is...

[humblebum]

33. There is plenty of potential competition, but it isn't allowed

to compete because the 'other side' is claiming that their freedom of speech would be violated if they were forced to let others speak also. I guess freedom of speech is okay as long as it is kept in check.

[RyboSlybo]

38. Why can't we get a good Liberal Radio Show? This makes no sense to me?

Why would we have to provide a voice of opposition on someone else's show? Why can't we get our own Radio Show? This is where my disconnect is...

[Obamanaut]

46. That was my question. Are there not enough listeners, or advertisers?

Is there not enough interest?

[rgbecker]

53. The progressives are constrained by the truth and without the lies there is little

Entertainment value. For those who hate the government and all it does, for them it is just one big fun joke to
lie about how government is giving away money or pocketing it without any oversight. Listen to Rush sometime.
Yesterday it was all about how the military would get everything done in Haiti right now without any bureaucracy to
slow it down. "Why the 82nd airborne would be in there running the airport in a minute." Funny thing is they were there
since Friday and Rush is complaining that the airport isn't being run well. All lies, all a big joke.

[Obamanaut]

57. That does not tell me why a progressive talk stationed "...constrained

by the truth..." perishes. No listeners who want the truth? No advertisers who want to be associated with the truth?

People who want to speak the truth to the non-listeners must be allowed time on the conservative stations because their own audience will not support the truth. Further, if only the normal conservative audience is listening to the conservative station, to whom will the liberal speaker speak?

I just don't think a liberal audience wants to support talk radio aimed at that audience. If it were so, there would be some.

[humblebum]

16. One thing I have noticed: due to the lack of a FD, the idea

that freedom of speech exists without it has been fostered by, and through, mainly talk radio - the very medium that is being allowed to speak freely while opposition speech is being systematically suppressed. Now, if that is your definition of free speech, then I would counter that it is only free speech for those are allowed to speak. Not having a FD, tailored to the times, is an afront to free speech!

[mmonk]

17. Yep

[Ignis]

39. Your concept of "freedom" = "he with the most money wins."

That's not freedom, that's oligarchy.

[RyboSlybo]

41. Ok if you say so...

What does Freedom mean to you? Of course our side has the potential to start our own Radio Show... And I know it's unheard of but you do realize Republicans are not the only ones with all the money right? I mean we have plenty of wealthy Democrats who could endorse a Liberal Show to speak to the opposition... My idea of freedom is not enforcing unnecessary rules upon those that I disagree with. Perhaps that is your idea of freedom...

Peace

[Ignis]

43. If you've been paying attention for the past few decades...

...then please explain how, exactly, these are "unnecessary rules."

Or did you take a wrong turn at Libertarian Underground? :shrug:

[RyboSlybo]

47. They are unnecessary because Talk Radio is not as big of a threat as many think...

As one poster mentioned earlier Rush claims to pull in on average 20 million listeners which is not even 10% of the population and we all know the kind of folks that enjoy listening to these shows. It is my belief that there are many more free thinking Americans open to different ideas who don't follow the trend or are spoon fed the sheeple's news on a regular basis, people like you and me who are able to form our own opinions...

It's the freedom to listen to or not listen to which we have and I choose not to listen, I honestly could give a shit about what's going on over the airwaves, that's what I have my Jimi Hendrix C.D.s for... Keeps my mind at peace...

Honestly how many more people listen to music when they are driving as opposed to talk radio? That's my point, I just think some are getting bent out of shape over something that is not that big of a deal... let them have their circle jerk... we don't have to be a part of it.

peace

[humblebum]

55. You need to consider percentage of voters. And

you also need to consider the numbers for all of the other RW talkshows. I think you will find the numbers are overwhelming.

[KharmaTrain]

9. It's Telcom '96 That's The Problem...

I'm like a broken record on this...the "Fairness Doctrine" only applied to the selling of commercial advertising time...forcing stations to sell it to ALL candidates and all at the same rate...the lowest on the station's rate card. It also refered to public service programs that are no longer mandated (thanks to "deregulation") and didn't cover News or talk shows (which are considered "Entertainment"). It also never applied to cable that isn't regulated like over-the-air public airwaves.

It's "deregulation" that's been the source of the rise of hate radio as corporate owned stations found it easier and cheaper to hook into a satellite. They drove away much of their audience, especially younger listeners and hate radio is one of the few that attracts ears. Many of the large radio corporates are either in bankruptcy or close to it.

It's time to push Chairman Grenkowski to do the long overdue "revisit" to Telcom '96 that allowed these corporates to gobble up thousands of stations; taking away many local voices and driving many talented people out of the business. They need to restore ownership caps, shorter license periods and a simpler process to challenge a license...as well as give preference to local ownership. Diversity of the airwaves empowers many and will help in the free flow of ideas and open and honest dialogue.

[NeeDeep]

10. Ding Ding Ding

Right on bro!!

[humblebum]

11. Over the air broadcasting is still an incredibly powerful medium.

And a mountain of excuses have been given to justify a very one-sided medium. The simple fact still is that talk radio penetrates into areas that no other medium can touch and it is being allowed to do so in a way that smacks of state-run propaganda. It doesn't matter whether there are a only only a handful of owners or a thousand. A new updated fairness doctrine can guanantee that opposing views are heard.

[NeeDeep]

13. The Election of Obama temporaly overcame this

but radio is incredibly influential. Look at what Lintball has done, he has convinced people that goverment is bad, during Clinton it was wall to wall "jack booted thugs" coming to get you, until McVeigh. He toned down a little but now every "liberal" is the enemy and not worthy of the air they breath. This guy spends all day telling people who/what/why not to care about, caring for people is really the enemy, he is just a human hater disguised as a conservative. If people want to interpret this as "Free speech" and die for it, you should get you head re-attached.

[RyboSlybo]

15. Yes re-attach my head for loving free speech... and standing up for it...

I'm no fan of Rush but like every American his words are protected by the 1st Amendment... Which is more important than you, me, or any damn radio show...

Peace...

[NeeDeep]

18. Your pourposely misinterpreting my words

and trying to make me out to be against free speech, don't do that, it's really coarse and self aggrandizing.

[RyboSlybo]

24. Well that was not my intention...

I'm just saying, not trying to attack you by any means and sorry if I came across that way. I don't like the idea of a Fairness Doctrine because in my mind it could lead us in a direction that is undesireable and could potentialy limit free speech... that's my fear...

Peace

[NeeDeep]

32. We have laws in this country against propaganda coming from the Gov.

not that they have ever been enforced, but I just see public airwaves being hijacked to serve a purpose other than the public good. O'Reily using Fox to incite the murder of an abortion Dr. Human nature being what it is people will keep pushing the envelope, is there a limit, or should we all drive our cars as fast as we can? We live in a world of privileges and limits, that's the deal if you want civilization, a civil society.

[RyboSlybo]

37. I understand where you are coming from and genuinly understand your concern...

It might not be as bad as I imagine I just have a hard time thinking we could not solve this problem if we just had a good voice from our side to argue the oppositions point that people like you and me would actually want to tune into and enjoy... Our party is Huge! Can we not find one talented succesful radio host to take on the Right Wing propoganda machine?

[KharmaTrain]

19. No Excuse...The Facts...

I speak from 25 plus years in that world...one I blissfully am nowhere near these days. I saw the changes first hand...how radio went from being a community service that focused on local information and entertainment into repeaters for the large corporates...seen thousands who jobs were "consolidated" then "downsized" and then out altogether. It's all thanks to "deregulation" that enabled a handful of owners to eliminate competition and diversity. Instead of a local program that meant one or several people on the payroll, it's easier to plug into a satellite.

Again, the Fairness Doctrine never required stations to present or guarantee that all views are heard on talk programming. It only pertained to public affairs shows that were burried on weekends and since deregulation are no longer required. Yes, it's a powerful medium and one that used to offer a variety of voices and formats but now is dominated by very conservative companies.

[humblebum]

23. If you want to cut right to meat of the situation - one person in

particular has been allowed to speak his mind freely and vindictively without any direct competition, and to wield a great deal of power unopposed because of it. That flies in the face of everything that I consider to be American.

[KharmaTrain]

31. And He's Paid By Someone Else...

Rushbo wouldn't have his "golden microphone" if he didn't have corporates behind him that saw his "services" of value and pay him the big bucks. You're looking at the puppet...look up at those holding the strings. When your company controls the biggest properties and inflated station prices to freeze out competition, this is the result.

The pisser about the First Ammendment is it gives wide berth to what can be said, but the real issue here is not who says it, but who has the access. Right now it's only a handful who are the gatekeepers to that access...it's time to revoke their exclusivity on the public airwaves.

[NeeDeep]

25. Thanks again for the insight

I guess I am simply revealing my thoughts on what has happened to radio and how the water temp has changed for us frogs. It's now a medium for flogging people and enslaving their minds and misleading them, doesn't sound like it's in the public interest anymore, it's abuse of the privilege on a profound level.

[KharmaTrain]

34. It's A Depressing Situation...

Welcome to DU...

I get radio newsletters and keep close contact with many still inside and they're the real frogs...watching the medium decay and dominated by greedy owners who have ne regard for anything but their own power and control. Public Interest began going out the door during the Raygun years and moved forward under both poppy bush and Bill Clinton. The airwaves went from a public trust to an entitlement. Just like how the "too big to fail" banks have destroyed the economy and "too big to fail" insurance and pharmacutical companies are destroying our health..."deregulation" has killed the public airwaves.

Cheers...

[lib2DaBone]

62. Outstanding! If this is a broken record..keep playing it....

The Taxpayers of the United States need to understand what has been done to them, and how media consolidation has enabled the corporations to "CATAPULT THE PROPAGANDA". (To copy a phrase from G.W. Bush)

The Telcom Act of 1996 , which I think was signed by our good buddy Bill Clinton along with NAFTA, eviscerated freedom of speech and sold the public airwaves to the highest bidder.

Read that again folks.. the airwaves were (and still are) PUBLIC 'friggin property. They were not put there to be bought, sold, sliced, diced or carved-up by Goldman Sachs.

Just because a politician has a D after their name.. doesn't automatically mean they are there to help anyone other than the corporations.

[KharmaTrain]

65. It Was The Work Of Clinton & Billy Tauzin

Who, in '93 was a Democrat who jumped ship after the '94 elections to become chairman of the telcom committee...worked closely with Clinton on this massive sell-out...and yes, they ARE the public airwaves. I've spoken with Michael Copps a couple years ago about this matter and he assured me that when Democrats came back in power that Telcom would be revised...agreeing with me on many major points. But so far...nothing.

My point here is not to mistake the "Fairness Doctrine" with the real problem that has infested our PUBLIC airwaves with lies and hate, turned broadcast licenses into gambling chips (that went bust) and destroyed the industry. It was local radio that helped the industry prosper for over 40 years (until Raygun) and now leaves many areas of the country without a local voice...no place to turn to in case of emergencies.

It's definitely time to take back the airwaves and empower local voices and diversity again...

[walldude]

21. Sorry don't agree. At the absolute most talk radio reaches

10% of the market. If Rush is to be believed and he has 20 million listeners that's not even 10% of Americans. It just seems like they are the "potent weapon" because they take their talking orders from the GOP. They get their faxes with their talking points in the morning and they hammer them in all day. On every station, on every TV show, newspapers and websites, they all carry the water and run the "message of the day".

The major problem with Democrats is they aren't little mindless lemmings and they can think for themselves. Therefore you will never have the forced message you get from the other side. You will never get all the Democrats on the same page like you can with the mindless sheep on the other side.

[MadBadger]

22. That's the biggest failure, not addressing the Fairness Doctrine?

[humblebum]

36. Yes. Because from that single issue, open discussion of all

other issues is guaranteed. Today we lack that significantly. It is over talk radio that enthusiasm for the "teabag revolt" was fired up, and the Clinton impeachment proceedings, and the Clinton healthcare initiative, and the Obama healthcare initiative, and on and on.......

[Romulox]

26. I, for one, don't think the problem is that we haven't heard the admin's talking points enough.

Censorship is a slipshod solution to a problem that is rooted in:

1) massive over-consolidation of media ownership; and
2) lack of any coherent message (or ideology, for that matter) from national Dems.

I think the OP is a tacit concession that the first two problems are intractable. That being the case, all a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" will do is require a wider broadcast of platitudes from the usual suspects.

Media control is the issue, not a lack of canned talking points. :hi:

[NeeDeep]

40. I agree media control consolidation is the problem, but what

about the "controller". If you controlled 1000 radio stations and liked/worshiped/got-on-yer-knees for Lintball, what ever would make you put on the likes of Mike Malloy or Hartmann. The owners political leanings are getting to be a huge problem - Murdoch - ring any bells, and god knows how many others. Dems have almost nothing going their way in the media and it's gonna bite em big time.

[Romulox]

49. Media monopolies need to be busted up. It would help tremendously. nt

[last1standing]

29. They have addressed it.

They said "No".

[Kingofalldems]

30. Freepers and DU disruptors hate the Fairness Doctrine

Therefore it must be a good thing.

[RyboSlybo]

35. Nice...

Very mature...

[Ignis]

44. If the Foo shits.... (nt)

[RyboSlybo]

48. I thought it was if the shit Foo's?

peace

[Romulox]

50. Everybody who disagrees with me is a JERK! nt

[Imajika]

45. No, the problem is liberal talk radio is terrible..

Simply awful in most cases.

I try to support it. I really do. I tune in Sirius Left as often as possible. It is just bad.

The names and shows I can remember are just not done well, they don't sound professionally put together, they are not very entertaining, etc, etc.

Left of center talk radio just isn't good. It is just not a place where liberals have put much energy.

Forget the Fairness Doctrine. IT IS NEVER, EVER, EVER coming back.

What we need a good, talented crop of liberal radio hosts that put in their time locally and on satellite and can actually be profitable on the AM/FM dial. If they can be profitable, they will get timeslots.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. Couldn't disagree more

I am listening to Thom Hartman now. He's wonderful. I also listen to Bill Press and Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz every day. None of them are awful. In fact, quite the opposite.

[rgbecker]

51. You are so right....These guys on everyday, all day are killing America.

Ask Scot Brown what he has his radio tuned to in his truck. He and just about every contractor in Massachusetts. Its the sport station with the Red Sox, and it all goes together like a gas in a gas chamber.

[joe_sixpack]

52. I don't think Limbaugh, or any of the others

are really going to make any democrats vote republican. Obama won, even though they tried their best to get him defeated. It's only people who share their views, who are remotely affected by those blowhards.

[humblebum]

56. Don't sell them short. They are unbelievably persuasive.

Especially when they boom the same message day after day, year after year without much competition.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

59. How can the FD be called censorship when its purpose is

to give opposing sides voice. As it is now censorship certainly exists. I think you are merely spewing the conservative line, which incidentally
has been stated over and over so many times over a controlled medium (without opposition) that it is believed without question. Kinda like letting Lincoln do all the talking in his debates with Douglas and Douglas not being allowed to speak, then being accused of censorship when he protests.

[Union Yes]

64. A lack of a FD is censorship. It creates a 1 sided view. nt

[morningglory]

60. Sunday on Meet the Press, Leon Panetta and Karen "Where's mah milkin' skirt?" Hughes

were on. I decided to watch for a few secs. Leon (or was it Lanny Davis?) said that Obama had inherited a real mess... Karen jumped ugly -- not a very long jump -- and said "there you go with the blame game! That goes both ways. Bush inherited a recession." Leon/Lanny said nothing. David Gregory said nothing. On to the next question. My mind was reeling. I can't stand it!

[dysfunctional press]

63. are they also responsible for the dim-wittedness of the electorate...?

people should be smart enough to identify bullshit when it's being dumped on them....but a lot of them aren't.

[Union Yes]

66. KNR. I'm suprised this doesn't have more recs. nt