Speaking of Anti-1st amendment dren

[sirs]

Unfairness Doctrine
By The Editors

Remember Jim Hightower? We didn?t think so. He was the former Texas state official who was, for a few minutes, the Left?s great hope for a liberal talk-radio host to challenge the domination of Rush Limbaugh. It didn?t work out. Neither did former New York governor Mario Cuomo, another failed radio talker. And neither did, most recently, Air America, the attempt to build an entire network of liberal talk.

Nothing has worked too successfully for liberal political talkers. Rush, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, among others, are as dominant as ever. The only thing that has changed is that liberals now seem less interested in challenging conservative talk radio in the marketplace than in strangling it with government regulation. And that presents a much greater threat than another misguided attempt to find the liberal Limbaugh.

A new blueprint for a government takedown of conservative talk radio comes from the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, founded and run by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. In a report entitled, ?The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio ,? the Center outlines a plan that would, if implemented, do enormous damage not only to conservatives on talk radio, but to freedom of speech as well.

Surveying 257 stations owned by the top-five commercial station groups, the report?s authors found the unsurprising news that 91 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative, and just nine percent ?progressive.? Rather than attribute that imbalance to the generally conceded superiority of conservative programming ? most radio professionals would tell you that Rush Limbaugh is simply better at what he does than any of the liberal opponents who have tried to compete with him ? the report finds a deeper, more sinister case. ?The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio,? it concludes, ?is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system. ? According to Podesta?s Center, those structural problems can only be solved by government action.

First, the report proposes new national and local limits on the number of radio stations one company can own.
Second, it recommends a de facto quota system to ensure that more women and minorities own radio stations.
And finally, it says the government should ?require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.?

The two-for-the-price-of-one attempt to have the government both stifle voices that don?t meet ?enforceable public interest obligations? while raising money for government broadcasting is certainly a worthwhile strategy for the Left. Not for free speech and free markets, however.

In addition, the report claims that the Fairness Doctrine ? the government rule that, before it was repealed in 1987, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial public issues ? might not really be dead, and thus might not have to be reestablished by Congress. Instead, a new administration might simply decide to enforce it again. That point is highly debatable, but it wouldn?t be surprising if President Clinton, President Obama, or President Edwards were to give it a try.

The fact is, liberals simply haven?t attracted talk-radio audiences. It?s not their market. But since they still largely have Hollywood, academia, the New York Times, PBS, NPR, a network news division or two ? they?ll survive. And we on the Right will, too, if we keep the Center for American Progress?s dangerously wrongheaded ideas off the table.
 
Op-ed

[Amianthus]

Second, it recommends a de facto quota system to ensure that more women and minorities own radio stations.

Shades of Harvey Gantt.

[Michael Tee]

A summary of the report and the full report in pdf format are here:  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

The report concludes, not surprisingly, that concentration of ownership is the reason for the predominance of conservative views.  Conservative views are more likely to be carried on stations owned by corporate owners who own many stations than on stations constituting the only broadcast holdings of their owners.

Put another way, rich station owners favour conservative views.  Not-so-rich owners favour more liberal views.  This seemingly obvious statement of fact is borne out by the study.

There is an obvious danger to democracy when the public airwaves are auctioned off for the rich to monopolize.  We are far past the days when public issues could be openly debated in the market square and all members of the community had a more or less equal voice.

The origin of the problem is with government.  That is, every broadcaster needs a license to broadcast on a specific frequency or band and the number of licensed bands or frequencies is limited.  I can't just suddenly create a broadcast studio and broadcast my signal on any frequency I like, because somebody else got there first.

Since the problem arises with government licensing, the solution also lies with the government, specifically in its licensing policy.  It needs to fix the regulations already in existence regulating broadcasting so that access to the public airwaves is no longer monopolized by the rich, who, in their own greed, selfishness and arrogance, inundate the rest of us with ass-holes like Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues.

[BT]

How is Air America doing?

Still broadcasting?

[gipper]

Beyond the immediate antidotes considered in the piece and beyond the larger issue of imbalance and its effect on the political system, there lurks the more fundamental problem of commercialism versus excellence. From my viewpoint, Rush is a commercial success (and somebody I've ever only incidentally listened to) while NPR and public television are often excellent using "objective" criteria. The viewership or, in this case, listenership are vastly skewed, however. I simply cannot chalk that up to the wisdom of the market, for the market, as embodied on our airwaves by advertising and program content, often (but certainly not always) appeals to baser interests and drives that don't promote the commonweal in any sense but reflecting freedom: in a sense, I'll fight to the death for my right to choose mindless sop. This of course is understandable, to an extent, as a hard day is often best finished with a (measured) diet of mindless distraction.

But distraction is not primarily what a vital democracy should be about, if it wants to stay vital and, indeed, extant. So Podesta's think tank, superficially censorious, have at least that basic and respectable principle to fall back on. How they accomplish it, if they do, matters greatly, however. They have a real (as opposed to insubstantial) problem in their lap, if they want to stick with it. It can be stated as (I'm a partisan, remember) insisting your son do his homework, night after night, instead of watching a ball game or listening to rap. (The analogy to a child or adolescent is not only conscious, but apt, I suggest.)

[Michael Tee]

The myth that the government is just allowing market forces to function is bullshit anyway especially when it comes to the MSM.  There's a huge potential market for bare skin of the female persuasion but see what a wardrobe malfunction can get you, even if it's for a fraction of a second.  They regulate what they wanna regulate, and allowing the rich to monopolize the airwaves isn't very high on their "must regulate" list.  Market forces, my ass!

[sirs]

The myth that there's no MSM bias to the left is also BS.  And it's no wonder how the left would want to supress the right's free speech in the 1 area they don't have such a monopoly.  Can't be having those opposing viewpoints just running rampant.  That'd be far too tolerant

[Michael Tee]

<<The myth that there's no MSM bias to the left is also BS.>>

Oh really?  And you know that how?

<<And it's no wonder how the left would want to supress the right's free speech . . . >>

Yeah, suppress it how?  By allowing other owners without the megabucks required to own chains of stations to also get a crack at the public airwaves?

<<Can't be having those opposing viewpoints just running rampant.  >>

Better to let those with the megabucks drown out all other voices, eh?  Especially when they're all using government-licensed public airwaves.

[sirs]

<<The myth that there's no MSM bias to the left is also BS.>>

Oh really?  And you know that how?

Same apparent Tee leaf connecting of dot logic you use, corroborated by not just the repetition of Bush bashing stries compared to Dem bashing stories, but also the frequent polling that shows how 80+% of MSM folk vote Democrat

Yeah, suppress it how? 

When a private free enterprise is MANDATED to provide an opposing viewpoint to a radio host that leans oneway in their ideology, or else they are NOT ALLOWED to SPEAK, that is how.  Which of course you already knew that, so why ask is a bizarre query on your part

<<Can't be having those opposing viewpoints just running rampant.  >>

Better to let those with the megabucks drown out all other voices, eh?  Especially when they're all using government-licensed public airwaves.

NO ONE IS PREVENTING ANYONE TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.  Last time I checked the left had their own flag station of talk.  Oh wait, no one wanted to listen to them, outside of their fringe foaming at the mouth audience.  Ahhhh, well, need to make sure the right isn't listened too either then.

And what the hell do you call the 24/7 doom and gloom reporting of Bush and Iraq by the MSM if not "drowning out all other voices"??  Oh yea, they're just reporting the news....minus of course all the stuff that might actually show the positive accomplishments made.

Gotta love that tolerance....especially coming from someone who has has no problems of cartoon characters pissing on the Christian cross.  Oh, but heaven forbid if it were a Christian clad pastor pissing on a Koran, or cartoons dipicting Muhammad in a not so respectful way.  The left and MSM, not to mention the majority of the Muslim population would go ape snot

[Plane]

A summary of the report and the full report in pdf format are here:  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

The report concludes, not surprisingly, that concentration of ownership is the reason for the predominance of conservative views.  Conservative views are more likely to be carried on stations owned by corporate owners who own many stations than on stations constituting the only broadcast holdings of their owners.

Put another way, rich station owners favour conservative views.  Not-so-rich owners favour more liberal views.  This seemingly obvious statement of fact is borne out by the study.

There is an obvious danger to democracy when the public airwaves are auctioned off for the rich to monopolize.  We are far past the days when public issues could be openly debated in the market square and all members of the community had a more or less equal voice.

The origin of the problem is with government.  That is, every broadcaster needs a license to broadcast on a specific frequency or band and the number of licensed bands or frequencies is limited.  I can't just suddenly create a broadcast studio and broadcast my signal on any frequency I like, because somebody else got there first.

Since the problem arises with government licensing, the solution also lies with the government, specifically in its licensing policy.  It needs to fix the regulations already in existence regulating broadcasting so that access to the public airwaves is no longer monopolized by the rich, who, in their own greed, selfishness and arrogance, inundate the rest of us with ass-holes like Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues.

One might speak of achicken and egg argument as being hard to determine which came first , but one can't argue that there is ever an egg after an egg with no intermeiadiate chicken.

The people who sell to the public sell much better when they give to the public what they want , they thereby grow rich (er).

The Wealthy who want to ,may waste their money giveing the public what it doesn't want and thereby grow poorer , there really are some who can (Sorous, Streisend).

But if the radio staion wants to be self supporting it gives the people what it wants , and if the radio station wants to be liberal it gives the people what they do not want .

[Michael Tee]

<<Same apparent Tee leaf connecting of dot logic you use . . . >>

Yeah, but I usually show you the dots and ask you to connect them to arrive at my conclusion.  You come to a conclusion alright [that the MSM has a left-wing bias] but so far you haven't shown any dots to connect up to it.

<< . . .  corroborated by not just the repetition of Bush bashing stories compared to Dem bashing stories . . . >>

You kept a careful count of the repetitions?  Most of the stories I see on the MSM are pro-military, but maybe you can tell me what "Bush bashing" stories you have seen repeated recently?

<< but also the frequent polling that shows how 80+% of MSM folk vote Democrat>>

What the hell do their votes have to do with it?  They can vote any way they like, but what is at issue is the content of the media, which certainly is more pro-war than any other media that I am aware of.


<<When a private free enterprise is MANDATED to provide an opposing viewpoint to a radio host that leans oneway in their ideology, or else they are NOT ALLOWED to SPEAK, that is how.  >>

As long as they are still allowed to provide a right-wing POV, there is no suppression at all in requiring them to provide a left wing POV as counterbalance.  Suppression is not allowing a POV to be expressed at all.  Which of course was never an issue, as it has never even been considered.


<<NO ONE IS PREVENTING ANYONE TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.>>

Of course they are.  If there are only 24 hours of airtime on a station and I don't let a left-winger speak on it, I have shut the guy out of the hearing of all the listeners to my station.  If I own three stations controlling a 75% share of a given market and I shut left-wingers out of all three stations, I have effectively prevented 75% of the listeners in my area from hearing a left wing POV.

<<And what the hell do you call the 24/7 doom and gloom reporting of Bush and Iraq by the MSM  . . . ?? >>

You are paranoid and crazy.  There IS not "24/7 doom and gloom reporting of Bush and Iraq on the MSM."  I don't know what the hell you are talking about.  They report everything Bush says and seem to take it at face value.  Nobody is allowed to challenge it directly, nobody calls him a liar, nobody calls him a war criminal and nobody says he deserves to lose.  They treat him with a great deal of totally undeserved respect.

<< Oh yea, they're just reporting the news....minus of course all the stuff that might actually show the positive accomplishments made.>>

POSITIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS?  Are you totally nuts?  In FOUR YEARS of warfare, a nation of 300 million people with overwhelming advantages in weaponry and technology is unable to subdue a Third World country of 23 million and you are looking for "positive accomplishments?"  Don't you get it?  Four years?  The world's only superpower?  A piss-ant country of 23 million?  Don't you know a disaster and a fiasco when you see one?  Who is going to look for "positive accomplishments" in such a totally fucked up enterprise?
If there were ANY "postitive accomplishments" this shit-fest would have been over years ago.

<<Gotta love that tolerance....especially coming from someone who has has no problems of cartoon characters pissing on the Christian cross.""

The cartoon character (a little kid) pissed at the base of the cross, not on the cross.

<<  Oh, but heaven forbid if it were a Christian clad pastor pissing on a Koran . . . "

Then it would not be at all like an impish little kid pissing at the base of a cross, would it?  It would be like an adult "Muslim clad" imam pissing on a Bible, to give an exact analogy, which would probably be a much more offensive cartoon than the one we are talking about.

<< . . .  or cartoons dipicting Muhammad in a not so respectful way. >>

which again would not be analogous to the cartoon in question, since it did NOT depict Jesus in any way.

<< The left and MSM, not to mention the majority of the Muslim population would go ape snot >>

Well, sirs, it looks like we all agree.  Yes, there ARE cartoons which would be offensive to religious believers.  Of course there are.  It's just that this cartoon (the impish little urchin pissing at the base of a cross) is not one of them.  Your analogies are way off the mark and are of course, for the reasons I've stated, much more offensive than the pissing urchin, but they're way off base, as is most of your thinking on any subject.
 

[Plane]

As long as they are still allowed to provide a right-wing POV, there is no suppression at all in requiring them to provide a left wing POV as counterbalance.  Suppression is not allowing a POV to be expressed at all.  Which of course was never an issue, as it has never even been considered.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


All right , but let it be me who determines where the exact center is .

[Amianthus]

Suppression is not allowing a POV to be expressed at all.  Which of course was never an issue, as it has never even been considered.

Actually, suppression is also restricting the POV. And limiting the number of stations for one POV is restricting that POV and suppression.

[Michael Tee]

<<The people who sell to the public sell much better when they give to the public what they want , they thereby grow rich (er).

<<The Wealthy who want to ,may waste their money giveing the public what it doesn't want and thereby grow poorer , there really are some who can (Sorous, Streisend).

<<But if the radio staion wants to be self supporting it gives the people what it wants , and if the radio station wants to be liberal it gives the people what they do not want .>>

In some areas the wealthier station owners have cornered the market and can give the people whatever they want to give them, so they will always make enough money from the station to satisfy their wants or needs and at the same time indulge themselves by purveying to their captive audience the kind of political views that they want them to hear and withholding from them the kind of political views that they don't want them to hear.  

Moreover if the trend towards consolidation continues, there will be more and more people hearing more and more of what a smaller and smaller group of station owners wants them to hear and less and less of what that same group doesn't want them to hear.  THAT is the danger the study warns us about.

Moreover, the government already sees to it that the people do NOT necessarily get what the people want to get from the MSM.  There is a huge male audience that wants to be able to see naked women and even hard-core pornography on their TV screens and because they can't, there is a huge trade in pornographic imagery on the internet.   Yet a network was fined $500,000 for a momentary nipple flash.  If your theory held up, the government would stand back and let market forces have their way, but you know and I know that will never happen.

So IMHO all this blather about market forces and audience choices is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  The fact is that the government has decided what you can and cannot watch on MSM TV, market forces and viewer choices be damned.  The air waves belong to nobody.  The government issues licences to broadcast upon them at various specific frequencies and a lot of those licences have found their way into the hands of some very wealthy people.  As a result of which, ONE TYPE of viewpoint, a POV that is acceptable to this small group of rich men, is predominating and slowly driving out competing POVs.  If the trend continues, one small group of men will have virtual control over the content of talk radio.

If you have no problem with the rich monopolizing talk radio and controlling who gets to speak and who doesn't, then by all means encourage your elected representatives to take no action on the report and allow present trends to continue unimpeded.  Otherwise, get your ass in gear and mobilize to turn the airwaves back to the people or at least to a broader spectrum of the people than are currently in control of them.

[Michael Tee]

<<All right , but let it be me who determines where the exact center is .>>

It'll be a committee or a commission.  Bipartisan too, which means no Ralph Naders and no Noam Chomskys.  Republocrats only.