Skip to main content

View Diary: Randi Rhodes Off The Air...again. (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The "Fairness Doctrine" (4+ / 0-)

    Horrible idea.  Horrible horrible idea.  It basically punishes right-wing talk radio for being successful, for no other reason than that.

    •  I'm not talking "Fairness Doctrine" (6+ / 0-)

      though I know that's come up in some circles. I'm talking about getting rid of three or four companies owning every single frequency on the AM and FM dial; you can tell because you'll be listening to a song on one station, change the channel and you'll hear the same damn song on another station.

      It's about getting some variety back into programming, and I'm not just talking about talk radio -- music stations have become way too homogenized, and you can't find good jazz or classical on the over-the-air broadcast frequencies.

    • are a right one but a (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Christin, Little Lulu, TimmyB, Godwulf

      right winger would ever say something that blatant about the Fairness Doctrine.  The air waves belong to the people.  There has to be a fair and equitable way to have diverse voices on the air..

      The canard that right wing radio is successful is just that .. a canard..

      Rush Limbaugh was the first asswipe who was promoted and pushed by the right wing in the 1980's after Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine.  Then the radio stations consolidated into fewer and fewer hands to limit the ability for progressives to speak.  The Limbaugh show would be sandwiched in time slots in markets so that he dominated markets..nothing more and nothing less.  He is nothing more than a right wing idealogue who has no intellecutal capacity whatsoever.  I can't think of anything that he has uttered that has been truth.

    •  AmbroseBurnside, how funny that you believe the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MA Liberal, RubyGal, Godwulf

      hype about the Fairness Doctrine.  What are you afraid of?  That Rush F'ng Limbaugh isn't dominating the airwaves in every market 24/7?  That an alternative voice, with alternative views and obviously substantiated facts instead of lies gets equal time?  Why would that scare you?  And why would you characterize it as punishing your preferred speakers?

      Don't be afraid of us crazy liberals.  We just like stating the facts.  

      Deal with it.

      Peace and LONG LIVE BARACK OBAMA, brought to you by LIBERALS!!!!

    •  Fairness doctrine. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RubyGal, TimmyB, Godwulf

      Since the electromagnetic spectrum used by radio belongs to the American people, I see nothing wrong with some rules regarding lowering barrier to entry and having diverse views represented. If, as you say, these shows are so successful, then it would seem appropriate to charge them more for leasing the public's radio spectrum. Instead it is somehow accepted that this spectrum should be given away for next to but rules of use are anti "free trade".

      •  Sinclair Broadcasting is a perfect example of (0+ / 0-)

        a media corporation that owns a vast number of television and radio stations.  It is a right wing evangelical Christian broadcasting company that sandwiches progressive radio stations so that often only their station comes through drowning out the progressive station or not even progressive..just NPR..they can't stand NPR..


      •  The "Fairness Doctrine' as it actually existed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NM Ward Chair

        didn't do anything about the barrier to entry. It's impact was limited to a late night rebuttal time offered to official Station  editorials.

        This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

        by ben masel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:29:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that FD has nothing to do (0+ / 0-)

          with barrier to entry, historically. But like the provisions for public access tv when cable monopolies were handed out, it could.

          I am conflating FCC public interest provisions a bit regarding licensing and FD, since I see one as justifying the other. Thus, while the late night editorials situation was true, I remember a balance on early talk radio ( early to mid 1980s)  most likely resulting from community interest provisions of the FCC license.

        •  I miss those crackpot rebuttals! (0+ / 0-)

          I remember them growing up.  Sometimes they were completely incoherent but the station had to air something, so why not a crackpot rebuttal instead of a coherent one of an opposing viewpoint?  It's really amusing that RW blockheads should get their blood pressure up over the FD.  It was a great concept with an excellent progressive frame, but no practical effect.

          Senator Al Franken. read it and weep, Rethuglicans!

          by NM Ward Chair on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:31:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  should read "next to nothing but rules", nt (0+ / 0-)
    •  Nice snark! -eom (0+ / 0-)

      Senator Al Franken. read it and weep, Rethuglicans!

      by NM Ward Chair on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:27:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site