Author Topic: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'  (Read 2073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2008, 05:32:59 AM »
I see no reason why it is in the public's benefit for Clear Channel to own a bazillion stations.
Consider that Rush is necessarily profiting from crap they sell on his show, but from people who pay him to rally the lumpenproletariat to his various dubious causes.

The right of a radio station to earn money is secondary to its providing a public service over the public airwaves.

After all, Rush and Clear Channel can rent space on satellite radio with no need to provide a public service at all. And that's what they should do.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2008, 12:06:23 AM »
people who pay him to rally the lumpenproletariat to his various dubious causes.



You seem to believe this , but why?

Even if Limbaugh were given huge fortunes by archerons ,ten times what the earns from adverts , this would not cause a single person to listen to him.

It is illogical and irrelevant both to think that oligarchs are making Rush Limbaugh popular by making him rich.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's New 'Fairness Doctrine'
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2008, 12:37:00 AM »

I see no reason why it is in the public's benefit for Clear Channel to own a bazillion stations.


They don't. But then, you don't need to see the reason why. The public has chosen by supporting stations that are owned by Clear Channel.


Consider that Rush is necessarily profiting from crap they sell on his show, but from people who pay him to rally the lumpenproletariat to his various dubious causes.


I think you meant not necessarily profiting from the crap they sell on his show. But Your criticism is baseless. I have yet to see any evidence that he is paid by behind-the-scenes conspirators to do anything at all. You're promoting, best I can tell, paranoid speculation that is as bad if not worse than that of the "oh no the liberals will force Rush from the air" stuff in the article.


The right of a radio station to earn money is secondary to its providing a public service over the public airwaves.


The hell it is.

Yes, that is a counterargument. You made an assertion. So did I. When you start arguing about forcing AAR to broadcast Rush Limbaugh or something similar, then get back to me about this pious "providing a public service" and "all viewpoints" position.



After all, Rush and Clear Channel can rent space on satellite radio with no need to provide a public service at all. And that's what they should do.


So can Air America Radio. I don't see you demanding it get off the airwaves. Seems to me your beef is with conservatives expressing themselves, not with fairness in radio.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--