Skip to main content

View Diary: Fairness Doctrine (continued discussion) (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's Reframe This... (0+ / 0-)

    I grew up in a time during which the Fairness Doctrine was practiced on TV.  And even though it had its odd moments (some times an opposing side is VERY odd) the tone of the debate was far, far more civil than it is today.  For that reason alone, I support its return.

    I also agree that media ownership is an issue.  A recent example is the advertisements that were run for Prop 8; some media establishments did not want to run ads for the pro side, but were forced to by their conglomerate owners.  There ought to at least be an "opt out" provision that allows media outlets to refuse to air ads they consider unfair, unjust, or against their conscience...without retaliation.

    However, I rather strongly disagree with a major contention of this post.  I do not believe that left-leaning critters are apt to flock to talk radio no matter HOW many outlets there are.  We just don't think that way.

    If you think for a moment, right-talk radio isn't about ideas, it isn't about solutions, and it certainly isn't about community service.  What it IS about is validating emotions.  While some may squawk that this characterization is unfair, it's true.  The people who listen to right-radio are not looking to learn new ideas, find solutions, or even find out more about the issues.  If they did, they'd stop listening because what they hear is so often at odds with reality.

    On the left-hand side, there's always NPR, and they do a good job, but they have no where near the popularity of right-talk, and they've been around forever and can be found everywhere.  WE just don't think that way.  We want info, we want to mesh minds, we want to create solutions and you just can't do that via radio...but you CAN online.

    So if there's ONE mega-lesson to learn from this election, it's that the left blogosphere is more powerful (finally!) than right-radio.  And if we want to battle them on their own turf, we have to learn how to play to OUR emotions, but then we too run the risk of becomming ditto-heads.

    •  Didn't Archie Bunker one time do a rebuttal (0+ / 0-)

      to a liberal opinion that he saw on the television? I remember he went on and said some really, at the time, hilarious things. I wish I had that segment on tape to post as a clip...

      But he wasn't a professional hater. So you could forgive him a little easier than some others.

    •  Absolutely it's about affirmation (0+ / 0-)

      This is the whole point!

      We have 23 percent of us, who need one hell of a lot of affirmation because of the shitty ideas we hold in high regard.

      Limbaugh and company are making big smack delivering just that.

      Here's something to ponder.  When Air America took off, I tuned in and found out I was not alone in my beliefs.  Know what?

      That felt damn good.

      Works both ways man.  If we take this affirmation and structure it so that there is competition, then we will have people being well served and people having a choice.  It's their choice, not ours.

      Besides, if you deny this to people on the traditional media, they will just go and do it on the Internet, leaving traditional media at a significant disadvantage.  They will win that one you know.

      Is there a reason why we can't work on media consolidation first, without bringing a controversial doctrine into it?

      What if that works well?  It could!  From what I've seen, it's likely to work.

      And that's one point I'm making here.  The more I have this discussion the stronger I feel about it.

      Reform is needed, but the doctrine is too controversial.  On the other hand, there is far better consensus on media ownership issues, and a lot of that comes from broadcast professionals themselves!

      By contrast, almost none of them want the doctrine back.  They know what will happen.

      1970's style news programming vs the internet means a lot of dark towers.  They would be right in that too.

      So tell me why we have to push both together?

      I knew Droogie, I liked Droogie, I won't forget what the AP did to Droogie.

      by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's about ad sales (0+ / 0-)

      The money involved in radio (vs. a website) is enormous, and requires big budget advertising for companies selling a broad-market big-ticket product or service.

      If we won't buy that stuff, and conservatives will, the radio personalities are going say what they want to hear.

      If we suddenly started buying that stuff, Hannity and Limbaugh would switch. They will read whatever talking points are placed in front of them for their paycheck.

      •  And that suggests we can hit back... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        socialist butterfly

        ...those lines.

        We need money for legal defense, and to empower people to collect audio, and get it delivered to ordinary people and that AD revenue source.

        Looking back at what happened when Spocko did this to KSFO, it's easy to see him being in trouble, if it were not for the EFF asserting fair use on his behalf.

        In my town, I was just talking to somebody who says they were threatened for trying the same thing.  

        Perhaps this can be done in a net-roots fashion, complete with some donation drives to fund legal efforts and such.

        I would totally participate in that, and I think it would work very well to limit the more hateful speech we are hearing.

        I knew Droogie, I liked Droogie, I won't forget what the AP did to Droogie.

        by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's exactly right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        potatohead, socialist butterfly

        if you think that more progressive voices belong on the air, then it's all about ratings, ratings, ratings.  Or to be more crude, it's all about money, money, money.  As long as Rush and Hannity get big ratings, and thus can demand top dollar sponsor money, and thus make the stations a huge amount of money, they stay on the air.  Once they stop getting big ratings, they go off. It's really as simple as that.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site