How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinsta   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


0 posted 01-16-2009 03:50 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

As the Democrats won the 2008 election, so they also think that they deserve a long cool drink at the entitlement trough.

The Porn industry and various other marginal struggling entities are begging for cash bailouts.  Amazing.

But the first item on Pelosi's mind is not the economy:  oh no.  It is reinstallment of the Fairness Doctrine, which is neither Fair nor is it needed.

It is the new Milennium's version of EEOC which mandated preferential treatment of minorities in the workplace, especially in job promotions.  It attempted to level the playing field by being unfair to one group, the largest, and being a sycophant to the smaller groups.  

So, the first week of Obama's admin is coming up (even though he thinks he is the acting Commander-In-Chief.)  He will be beholden to all the special interest groups that got him elected.  If he is smart, he will temper his urges to pay them back.  If he is not, he will let the Fairness Doctrine come back into force as one of the first laws passed in his administration.  At least 4 different Democrats are assembling legislation right now that would bring the F.Doctrine back.

Bahama somehow got a huge 300 Billion bailout thru even though he is not President.  He did this for one reason:  he wanted the 300 billion dollars to fall under Bush's spreadsheet, not his.  

It still is conjecture whether the Dems or Bahama will be the puppet in this new administration.

In a startling revelation, the owner of the failed Liberal Talk Show Air America, Jon Sinton, even says Liberals don't need the fairness doctrine to compete.  
****http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990390599425181.html?mod=googlenews_wsj***
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 01-16-2009 06:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

He should tell that to Air America!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


2 posted 01-17-2009 05:10 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


http://airamerica.com/stations

Dear Mike,

          You have been listening to conservative radio stations again.  As a result, you seem to have gotten the idea that Air America is off the air.  You've repeated this several times over that past six months or so, so I thought you might have a look at this list of Air America Affiliates.

     In looking up Air America on Google, I saw 22,000,000 references listed.  Many of them will be people saying that there is no Air America, of course, but you will also note some places where you can tune right in and listen in your area should you choose.  Much of what they say will probably not be to your taste; sometimes, I find almost everybody offensive, including myself, so I wouldn't be surprised.  Sometimes I think that they have some things to say that are worth listening to, if only to hear what the other guy is saying.  Anything without facts, of course, is probably a waste of your time, and Air America has it's fair share of that sort of thing.

     Randi Rhodes, while heavily sarcastic, is worth listening to because she does have a fair number of facts that you can check out.  Rachael Maddow is also very good, if only to hear a well presented version of what the other guys are thinking.  Thom Hartmann as well.

     If I'm going to be enough of a fool to suggest folks on the left that I think are good with their facts and opinions, I think it's only fair for me to ask you, Mike and/or Threadbare, who you think is solid on the right with facts and opinions.  I think it's useful to see where we have common ground as well as where we disagree.  We'll probably  continue to disagree as well or better than we have in the past, but getting some common ground is at least as useful.

     I don't know Threadbear as well, but I'm clear that Mike is a guy who actually wants good stuff for our country, and is able at times to reach beyond partisanship.  Like myself, he does this with difficulty much of the time.  This seems worth building on as much as possible.

     Anyway, my best to everybody.  Happy new year to all.

Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 01-17-2009 06:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

FEBRUARY 7--Bankrupt and about to lose Al Franken, its marquee star, Air America Radio is set to change hands for the bargain price of $4.25 million, according to new court documents. The sales figure was disclosed in a purchase agreement filed yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York. According to the agreement, the deal between Air America's owner, Piquant LLC, and a firm controlled by Stephen L. Green, a New York realtor, calls for Green's firm to repay up to $3.25 million in loans provided to Air America after the liberal radio network filed for Chapter 11 protection last October (the company listed debts of $20.2 million). Green's company will also give Piquant LLC $500,000 and pay off up to $500,000 in network debts (the bulk of which, $349,000, is owed to the network's Manhattan landlord). Green's bid topped by more than $1.25 million the nearest offer received by Air America, according to a motion filed along with the purchase agreement.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0207071airamerica1.html
February, 2007

On March 14, 2007, the new owners of Air America announced[21] the hiring of long time radio veteran David Bernstein to be the new Vice President of Programming. Prior to joining Air America, he was best known as the program director at New York radio station WOR from 1995 to 2002.[22] In an interview with the New York Daily News,[23] Mr. Bernstein explained his vision of Air America's future as "I don't see our purpose as 'answering' conservative radio or Rush Limbaugh. There's no clear majority in this country today. We want to talk to everyone and help everyone make the right choice." On November 15th, 2007, industry news site Radio Online reported that Mr. Bernstein is exiting Air America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio

Randi Rhodes, Bob? We know all about Randi down here in Florida...she didn't do very well here.

After being suspended by Air America management for derogatory remarks toward Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton while off the air, the popular Randi Rhodes quit the network on April 9, 2008, citing a contract dispute.[25] Rhodes moved to Nova M Radio the next day.[26] The show is also aired in its former time slot on the Air America Left channel on XM Satellite Radio.

Who is listening?

In Arbitron's Winter 2008 ratings book, Air America stations carrying a majority AAR programming and in markets for which Arbitron reports results four times a year averaged a 1.2 share. The highest rated Air America affiliates were KPOJ in Portland, Oregon (3.7 share), WXXM in Madison, Wisconsin (3.5), and KABQ in Albuquerque, New Mexico (2.6). The lowest rated affiliates were WDTW and WLBY in Detroit, Michigan (unmeasurable), WOIC in Columbia, South Carolina (0.4), WTKG in Grand Rapids, Michigan (0.5), and flagship station WWRL in New York City (0.5).

WXXM in Madison had announced in November 2006 that it would switch to all sports programming by the end of the year.[27][28] Following a very vocal backlash from the station's listeners[29] and syndicated hosts,[30] Clear Channel in Madison later backtracked, deciding to leave the progressive talk format on the station.[31] WWRL in New York recently dropped Thom Hartmann and now gets less than half of its programming from Air America.


The flagship station in New York city with a 0.5 rating? I thinks Hints from Heloise can top that.

Yes, Bob, Air America is still taxiing (flying would be too strong a term) but they cannor compete with the conservative stations and they know it. That is why congress will try to level the playing field with the Fairness Doctrine. They are not smart enough to know that screaming and sarcasm (ala Rhodes and Franken) does not attract listeners and they reason that forcing people to listen to them is the only way to do.

It won't work, sir.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 01-17-2009 08:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Bob, in answer to your question, my response is obvious. Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck ALL use verifiable data to back up their facts. That's one reason why they are so listened to.

The other thing - and the BIG thing - is that their programs, along with other conservative talk shows are very UP on America. They are positive. They refer to the goodness of the country and it's citizens and military personnel. Hannity, for example, has a series of America tours, where millions of people have come to hear patriotic music and celebrate the good things about the United States. Can you name any liberal station, or even person, who does that? The few liberal shows I listened to (and there were a few) lacked this completely. Their presentations were all negative and sarcastic, as if screaming could take the place of information. Perhaps they are not all like that but the ones I have seen are.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


5 posted 01-17-2009 09:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike,

           I don't think Liberals are down on America; I think that Liberals are upset with policies and decisions that America takes at times; for example, torture.  

     It isn't Un-American to be down on torture.  It wasn't when we were criticizing the Japanese and Nazis for using it during World War II, when we criticized the North Koreans and the Chinese from using it during the Korean War, or when we criticized the North Vietnamese for using it during the Vietnam war.  It was just plain wrong, period.
That the same justifications that came from the mouths of the Germans, The Japanese, the North Koreans, The Chinese and the North Vietnamese have been flowing from the mouths of our leaders for eight years  doesn't make them suddenly right.  Sewage is sewage, no matter what color you try to paint it, even red, white and blue.

     Disagreement with policies is not dislike for the country.  There are left wing idiots who dislike the country because of the policies in the same way that there are right wing idiots who love the policies because of the country.  Idiocy is there for those who wish to achieve it.  There is an idiot-ocracy in the same way that there is a meritocracy; unfortunately, like cream, sewage seems to float as well.  It doesn't respect left or right in politics.

     Hannity and That Man Whose Name You Once Asked Me Nevermore To Mention have ideas and points of view.  I have listened to both men.  I am not sure they have facts, however.  Randi Rhodes, much as you dislike her, did have The Downing Street memoranda months before anybody else, and she knew how important they were, and said so.  Rush was still talking about torture as if it was okay, and as if there actually were weapons of mass destruction sitting around to be scooped up.  Hannity sounded a lot like Rush.

     Glenn Beck I haven't seen, and will look for.

     I had been hoping for somebody like Gary Wills, conservative and thoughtful who's given a lot of thought to constitutional issues and has written some interesting history from a Conservative point of view on the Founding Fathers.   He's also done some apparently fine translations of Latin Poetry, which I have yet to check into.

     If you have a chance to look at some of Gary Wills, please let me know.  He is Conservative and very interesting, and I'd like to know what you think of him.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


     About the folks who are Liberal and yet celebrate the American Values and aren't sarcastic — I find that a puzzler, frankly.  Most of all these people stay on the air because they're witty or sarcastic about something, whether they're Conservative or Liberal.  Over the past eight years, they've been pretty sarcastic about the government of the country.  I'd hope that you wouldn't find this un-American any more than I'd find Rush talking about "America Held Hostage!" for eight years un-American.

     If you want a Liberal who gets beyond all that stuff, I guess I'd go for Bill Moyers on Public Television, simply because he isn't a talk show host.  

     Being critical of the country and its policies seems to me to be very American, and when the Republicans do it, they seem to think so too, as when we intervened in Kosovo.  The Republican and Democratic sides of the debate over Iraq could well have been written by the same people, only with the parties switched in the delivery of the speeches.  We are so much like each other at times I can't believe it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 01-17-2009 10:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Much of what you say is true, Bob. Being against torture is certainly not being against the country and I am against it as much as the next man, to a point.

Being critical of the country and its policies seems to me to be very American,

Here we will disagree. Being critical of the country is not American to me. Members of the government, yes. Policies, yes. The country? The common ordinary people that inhabit this little piece of land? No. Perhaps it is only the semantics we disagree on but I have heard liberals speak of the "evilness" of America, the greed of America, etc, etc, etc....and I don't buy it. I've heard liberals claim that America should be ashamed of itself and I don't buy that, either. Politicians? Sure? political decisions? ok. The country? Nope.

It is easy to say that, for the past eight years, liberals have had a lot to criticize and complain about but the fact is that they have had only one complaint....Bush. Every complaint of theirs has been aimed to bring him down...period. On the torture issue, they went straight at Bush. That is fairly unprecedented in American politics but Bush was the prize they wanted to bag.

Want a little proof of what I am saying here? OK, this should be interesting. Over the past 8 years, constant attacks have been aimed at Bush by the liberals. Let's find out if they were sincere attacks or just trowing mud against the wall to see what might stick

(1) Gitmo. They have demanded Gitmo be closed down immediately and occupants dealt with. Let's see how long it tales them.

(2) wire-tapping. They filled newspapers with outrage over Bush's "illegal" wire-tapping which wasn't illegal. Little old ladies (and members here) displayed outraged indignation that their privacy could be violated by the Bush policies. Let's see how long it takes them to do away with these abominations.

(3) The Bush tax  rebates and breaks for the rich. When Bush gave rebate checks to citizens, Democrats went ballistic. Also, the liberal mantra was "Bush favors the rich!". Ok, let's see what happens now.

There are many other cellophane attacks against Bush over the years, such as the foreign ownership of ports and others that, of course, were outrages of the moment with no substance. What makes it sad is that these pseudo-attacks were occurring while we had fighting men in the field. Democrats were willing to trash Bush at every opportunity with no regard to how it might damage us overseas. i can assure you they would not have acted that way had the president been Democrat.

Be all that as it may (already overly-discussed on this board) Let's see what happens with the three topics I mentioned above. If the Democrats change them, they were valid. If they don't, then it was all a bunch of garbage.

I'll keep you posted
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


7 posted 01-18-2009 06:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          I don't have much time to respond now to you other than to thank you for giving me a reading.

     I am, of course, a Democrat.  But if the Democrats
fail to stop torture, I will say they are as rotten as the Republicans who instituted it; perhaps worse, because
they know better.  And it remains American Policy, then I will condemn the country for it, because the country knows better.  And anybody who doesn't say so will be tainted by their failure, as the Germans were, despite the heros there who stood up.  This I say not because I want it to be so, but because of how the world to this day looks at Germany and how the Germans —many of them— look at themselves.

     If you think we are immune I suggest you are being hopeful without reason.  Being American gives us no more immunity to such things than it does to traffic tickets.  Calling attention to reality isn't unpatriotic, it's a moral duty.

     More later, Mike.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven  
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


8 posted 01-19-2009 12:31 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Hi, Bob, and thanks for the post.  Nicely done.

I'm not really sure I want to divulge my sources because people will think I'm a 'Limbaugh' man, if I list him, and I'm not.  I think the top four conservative AM voices:  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Neil Borst all have very salient points at times, but tend to be repetitious.  Limbaugh is great at seeing the story between the lines.  I ignore his bombastic nature and focus on the interp.  Hannity's strength is his strength.  He's gung-ho on protecting America at all costs.  Glen Beck is a political prophet.  He called into question: ACORN, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac 3 years before it was known to the public and demanded action then, almost weekly.  Borst knows economics, and is a proponent and author of the Fair Tax details.  I'm totally against the IRS method of collecting taxes, so a fair tax proposal is worth looking into.

     I try to take a Renaissance type approach to news & information.  For instance, I look at Al Zaheerah's website as much as I do the Jerusalem Post.    There is 'the news' and then there is the 'flavour of the news.'  One is a surface approach to understanding events; the other takes a more 360degree look around, and attempts to get more into the affected people's mindset and how the news affects their region.  It's the understanding of both sides that gives a journalist an edge on getting the whole picture.  Whether they seek the 'edge' or not, is the difference between a success story like Limbaugh and a failure like Franken's talk show stint.  It can be argued that neither is a journalist, and that is true, but Limbaugh has a finely honed journalists' perception that gives him a leg up on fellow Conservative talk radio hosts.  While I don't always value his conclusions, I appreciate his effort to understand 'why' a specific news story happened.  

   Air America generally only airs in liberal-based towns, and this is largely due to attrition.  They originally setup in most every large city, and they've been down to only their base core audience now. Al Franken was unlistenable; Maddow is too snarky and is too much of an Olbermann puppet to be of value.  She is a Rhodes Scholar (like Clinton, like Kris Kristofferson, like Senator Lugar) and to be honest, I expect more of her intellegect to eventually come out, especially since the Bush days are gone, and who the hell knows what Progressive Talk Show hosts will complain about now!  Randi Rhodes is the liberall equivalent of Ann Coulter, and I ignore them both 100%.  I don't like anyone who says "you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" and both women fit that mold.   I have always had a great respect for Allen Colmes and look forward to his new show.  Whenever I can listen at night, I try to listen to find Allen’s AM show.  He has a logical thinking approach that seems to skip the over-abundance of emotion-only responses that I hear on Left-AM, at least from the caller’s standpoints.  

  In general, what I heard before A.Amer left my city, was a constant barrage of I Hate Bush over and over and over again, with conspiracy theories, assumed conclusions, and name-calling.  It was sophomoric at best, and really didn't have the chops that AM Conservative radio has.  For one thing, the audience is tremendously younger, and they don't articulate or formulate opinion well.  Then the DJ's never called BS on the bad callers with immaturity, and the reputation that Air America was full of naysayers and MoveOn.Org supporters stopped most new listeners from joining.  

My health has kept me from posting more to this, even though I started the thread, and I’m embarrassed a bit by not contributing more.

Jeff
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


9 posted 01-19-2009 02:31 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     That's Okay, Jeff.  It's funny how the difference in political orientation makes such a difference in the way that various commentators come across.  I agree with both you and Mike, for example, that Randi Rhodes really sounds self righteous and sarcastic a high percentage of the time.  This makes her difficult for me to listen to, simply because I hate the attitude.  On the other hand, I think she has a lot of her facts straight.  I think I mentioned The Downing Street Memoes the other day.  She was the only person reporting them and insisting on their importance months before they were picked up by other people.  While BBC and the Christian Science Monitor (I think) were reporting on the falsifications by the Bush administration of data about Yellow Cake Uranium and Aluminum tubes before she did, she came shortly after.  As far as I can tell, she is swollen with ego, as probably most of the talk show hosts are, but seems to have more facts at hand than most of the rest of them.  The package, though, is not easy to take.

     Ann Coulter, has all the worst qualities of Randi Rhodes and a tendency to substitute personal attacks for facts in addition.  It shifts the discussion from the issues to her manners and her lies.  By the time you get one lie of hers pinned down, she's scattered half a dozen more.  I think that she should be matched with Al Franken for a debate partner.  He can be as nasty as she is, and he can supply source material on top of it, but who knows.

     In general, I think that talk show hosts are pretty much a waste of time.  They are almost obligated to spend their time spreading heat rather than light, simply by the dynamics of the marketplace.  In this country, for example, we are flooded with information about the pro-Israeli side of the Palestine/Israeli conflict.  We have little information about the Palestinian side of things except for the little read Christian Science Monitor, which actually does try to give a genuinely unbiased view of that grim conflict.  

     It turns out that with more balanced information, everybody looks worse, though perhaps the Israelis look a little worse than we are used to seeing them through our usual press outlets.  Everybody has pimples and bad breath close up, surprise surprise.  That's probably not interesting enough for a talk show, though.  A talk show needs a really bleak villain.  We want really bleak and cartoonish villains whose humanity we don't really have to deal with.  I think the phrase is a translation from the French, "terrible simplifications."  But it's something we all have a weakness for, and which talk shows feed with snack food.

     I'm very sorry you haven't been feeling so well, and hope you're feeling better.  This thread seems interesting, though I find I can only chip away at answers the questions you and Mike (and hopefully others, soon) raise here.  Myself, I'm not terribly concerned with equal time so much as I am with the fact that the actual issues aren't really getting any time at all.  Why, for example, torture is even an issue in this country, and why we we even consider legislating away what freedoms we have in the interest of forming some security state when we're pretty much clear that security states strangle themselves and their people to death.

     Anyway, I'll try to pick this up later.

     My best to you.  Sincerely, Bob Kaven

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


10 posted 01-19-2009 03:25 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Thanks for the well-wishes, Bob.  That was really sweet.  Been bedridden in pain for a couple of days; hurts like the begeezus. Sitting upright is nearly impossible at times when things get bad.  Lots of people have something worse than me, so I shouldn't complain.

Anyway, just wanted to say that Rhodes has the major character flaw that keeps most Liberal talk show hosts back:  they seize unto some viable, like the Downing Street memos, report on it, initially provide good analysis....then it all goes downhill from there.  They start the over-analysis, the over-speculation, allowing 'expert opionions' (like Scott McClennan) that also happen to be 100% wrong, and really streeeettttch to make their point weeks later.  I think it's a subconcious effort to keep the story in the news as long as possible, and the only way that's possible is exaggerate the premise and effect.   I've seen this time after time on Olbermann: he gets onto a topic and won't let it go.  His obsession with O'Reilly borders upon the homophobic.   Can we count all the times that Rhodes or Olbermann predicted jail for Bush and it never happened?  They're great at predicting doom, but nobody ever holds them accountable for all the predictions they make that don't come true.  I'm sure they drastically outweight the dire predictions that DO come true.  Personally, I'm sick of tv or radio shows that say:  The world has NEVER been worse...blah blah blah.

Humbug.
Try living 250 years ago in London, for instance.  Famines, Black Death, 30 year old life expectancy.  
This is the BEST man has ever lived, and we don't even know HOW to enjoy it.
Go figure.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 01-19-2009 11:52 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

But if the Democrats
fail to stop torture, I will say they are as rotten as the Republicans who instituted it;


Ah, the torture again. Thanks, Bob. I wasn't aware that torture (in whatever form you are trying to present) was a republican invention, unheard of until the republicans instituted it.

And anybody who doesn't say so will be tainted by their failure, as the Germans were, despite the heros there who stood up.  

So easy for us to say, isn't it, Bob? Yep, the Germans should have overthrown Hitler. The Italians should have overthrown Moussolini. The citizens of Somalia and the other African countries being killed by the thousands show overthrow the dictators. How easy it is to pass judgement on them, when not in their shoes. Personally I have never held a grudge or thought less of any German, Italian or Japanese for the results of the war, nor have I ever thought less of the country, as a whole, especially for after having lived there for three years. If there IS any national condemnation of them, it comes from outside, not from the German people. If there is any condemnation of the United States as a country, it should also come from outside but, thanks to democratic leaders and liberal talk shows, it comes from inside to bolster the thoughts of outsiders and that's a sad commentary on them, not the country,
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 01-19-2009 11:58 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Btw, threadbare is correct. We live in the worst time in history right now because the press and the liberals want to PRESENT it as the worst time in history. In a year or so I predict they will label the time then as one of the BEST in history. Both depictions will be ridiculous.

Keep telling people how miserable they are, how unfortunate they are, how mistreated they are, and you will have a lot of miserable people. That seems to be the liberal talk show's main objective. Ellsworth Toohey live on......
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


13 posted 01-19-2009 03:28 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Interesting turn to the discussion.

     I don't recall having said this was the worst time in history.  Calm down guys.  Take a deep breath.  Remember, this is something you're attributing to somebody else, I think Keith Obermann —whose work I do by and large enjoy, to be truthful.  You're getting angry at me about it, though.  I am me and he is he.  Two different people.

     About Mike's comment about criticism of the country  and how it should only come from overseas, I should beg to disagree.  This is why:

     What a country does is a result of policy.

     Policy is not actually something the country itself does.  Policy is something that attaches to the Government of the country, which is a separate thing.  The Government of a country is something that is a matter that is contested between various parties, some of which will be in power, some of which will be out of power at any particular time.

     A citizen owes loyalty to his Country.  If his party works against the interests of the country, he should also work against his party and the government that is running it at that particular time.

     I can understand that you believe that the neoconservatives that have been running this country for the past eight years have been doing everything or at least most things right for the country; hence your support.  I would like you to understand that I think they emphatically have not.  That they have damaged the country terribly, and that it is my duty as an American to make a fuss about that.  I am loyal to the country and not this particular government, as I assume you, during the Clinton years, made a considerable fuss about the things you thought Clinton had done wrong and expected that you were doing your duty.  I know that your party certainly did this and drew no such distinction about not criticizing the government in public.  Both they, and you knew well where your duties lay.  And even though I didn't happen to like what you were saying (I didn't know either of you specifically at the time; "you" in the sense of Republicans in general) and felt there were ulterior motives, it never crossed my mind that you were being un-American or disloyal for saying so.

     Were you?  

     Worst time in History/Best time in history?

     Mike, when somebody makes a criticism, such as the difference between rich and poor in this society is extraordinarily large for and American society when we look back over what we know of American societies in the past, for people trained in formal writing, this is actually a fairly specific thing.  In at least academic writing, you are supposed to be able to show what you mean with documentation.

     Perhaps you actually did hear somebody say This is The Worst Time in History, the questions are, Who said it and When?

     I think it might be very difficult to find somebody who actually said this is the worst of all possible worlds that I, for one, wouldn't think was nuts, as would probably most other people on the left.  Whatever our criticisms, they tend to be more specific than that.

     As for telling me what the left will be saying in a year, you have no more chance of being right than anybody else.  If anybody says that it's the best of all possible worlds, however, I will join with you in saying that they're crazy.

     Both statements are red herrings.

     As for trotting in one of your favorite Ayn Rand Villains,
he is loathsome, isn't he?  And he's meant to be.  Simply because she writes good fiction doesn't make her a world class economist or philosopher, though perhaps many people believe it did, sort of like Hugh Heffner.

     I probably shouldn't have thrown in that line about the Heff, but at the moment it seemed funny to me.

Maybe we can get back to this later.  Best wishes to both of you, and better health especially to you, Jeff.  Sincerely, Bob Kaven
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


14 posted 01-19-2009 03:52 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi -- I was watching a PBS show last night about the old Smothers Brothers program, and one part involved the satirical candidacy of Pat Paulsen for President.  I thought it was pretty funny.  Years later, Al Franken gets elected.  I don't think that's funny.  And I'm a Democrat.  Ranks eight up there with the election of Sonny Bono.  And I was a fan of Sonny and Cher.

The cable tv and radio ranters are mainly in the business of self promotion, which is fine and, by gum, the American way.  Not that it means one can't live an informed life without paying attention to any of them.  Which is generally the case.

No matter which set of "ratings," one chooses to look at or believe, the combined audience for all these folks amounts to next to next to nothing vs, say, American Idol.  Now that I think of it, American Idol might be a good format for future Presidential elections.  Lord knows they all sing for their supper and tap dance as well.

Just a thought.  Jimbeaux
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 01-19-2009 11:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, if you don't consider Rand a world class philosopher, I think you would be in a minority. Agree with her philosophical beliefs or not, she does deserve that distinction.

By the way, she was not really a fiction writer. She was a reality writer who wrote it in a fiction format.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


16 posted 01-20-2009 02:08 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Maybe so, Mike, but READING Ayn Rand
is like to trying to jog thru wet concrete.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


17 posted 01-20-2009 03:46 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Must be a lot of people who enjoy jogging through wet cement, Jeff.

This changes every hour and likely won't last, but as of this particular moment, Atlas Shrugged is ranked number five on Amazon's Bestsellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


18 posted 01-20-2009 08:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into
totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity.
The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library
of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated
"Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.


threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


19 posted 01-20-2009 10:10 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

getting back on topic a bit,
House Speaker Pelosi says she is pushing for fairness, but anytime you name the need for fairness and mention your worse vocal critics by name (Hannity, Limbaugh) the agenda becomes pretty obvious:  silencing your critics.  I think this ranks right up there with with Blagoyavich as worse abuses of power.  

   When the Fairness Doctrine was implemented, I was in radio as a dj and a music director at the time.  I saw firsthand what the effects of the legislation did to normal radio stations.  All of a sudden, programming HAD to change, but no-one knew which direction to change to.  All of a sudden programming was dictacted by EVERYONE's LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR:  lawsuits.  Yup... they could no longer put on the best program that would get the best ratings.  They had to give EQUAL broadcasting time to dissenting opinion, or else the ACLU's attack dogs would descend like a plague.  I had a late night radio talk show in a mid-sized college town.  The PD (Program Director) and GM were constantly on me to make sure I balanced the phone calls for/against EVERY topic I brought up.  Hell, we were lucky to get 1 dissenting phone call on some topics, yet there we were: doing everything right, yet STILL at the mercy of some misguided lawsuit.  I remember distinctly how nutso Management was all the time.  It literally bankrupted dozens of radio stations in compliance.  

  Finally, the law was repealed and radio, which was already struggling for an audience, became viable and alive again.  Many in the Civil Rights law areas have said that the Fairness Doctrine was perhaps one of the WORST and most INEFFECTIVE laws ever implemented upon private businesses.  To this day, NO-ONE can claim that the old F.D. laws had any positive effect in any way.  So why, good G*d, are we even TALKING about putting this hunk of junk law back into service UNLESS it is to silence critics?

p.s.  Atlas Shrugged is no more Sci-Fiction than Malcom In the Middle. ~a wink, a nod, and a shrug~

[This message has been edited by threadbear (01-21-2009 12:29 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


20 posted 01-21-2009 12:07 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Fairness Doctrine?

     I'd be interested in seeing how such a law might be set up, now that you mention it.

     If in fact I felt confident that the market was the deciding factor about which programming was presented, rather than the whim of the (generally right wing) owners of the radio stations and TV stations.  I am not confident in this.  I believe that virtual monopoly conditions rule in the media markets at this point, and the monopoly busting laws originally put in place by reform-minded republicans under Teddy Roosevelt have been eviscerated by the Modern Republican Party, more on the side of the Monopolists than of the people they originally undertook to protect.

     I am reasonably unclear that the electronic media are not maintaining the public trust under which they undertook to run their profit-making enterprises.  If they can't do so in the public interest, they really have no business in making a profit from a publicly granted trust.  Perhaps the current owners should make room for people who believe they actually can do both things instead of complaining that their profits are not maximized.

     Their authority to make profit at all was conditional on their willingness to do so specifically within the limits of the public good.

     Like driving, this sort of profit is not a right; it's a strictly regulated privilege.  At least as far as I understand it.  The public is not under an obligation to serve them; it's the other way around.

     I imagine cops get tired of speeders telling them that the speeders pay the salary of the cops, too.  True, but arrogant and off the point; everybody pays the cops' salaries for protection from thugs and entitled and arrogant dorks.  Or Broadcast media owners who aren't creative enough to do what they said they would do when they bid for the work in the first place:  Guard the Public interest.

     How much equal time is needed would depend on how accurate your facts are in the first place, don't you think?  You might consider a law written that way, at least, as one possibility.  It would keep everybody honest, even if it would cut down on the entertainment value of the lies that now flood the airwaves.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 01-21-2009 12:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I am not confident in this.  I believe that virtual monopoly conditions rule in the media markets at this point,

Interesting thought, Bob. It would certainly explain the left wing press and major news networks.

I have to disagree, however. Perhaps monopoly conditions attempt to set the tone or guidelines but it is still the public that has the last say in the matter. That's why so many of the major newspapers are going under. If you want to buy the Miami Herald, you can have it for a song...but you better hurry. Fact is, the American public is not always stupid. They will take something so long and then turn it off, which is one reason why liberal talk shows just can't compete. Not enough of the public is interested in them and their style. If those evil right wingers set up a monopoly consisting of Linbaughs, Hannitys, Becks and Levins, they still would not make it without the public acceptance of them. The public would simply turn them off.

Your comments are probably pretty right on with the ones liberals will use to re-introduce the Unfairness doctrine...break the monopolies, fair and equal for all and all of the balderdash they can come up with. It still won't work and Jeff explained exactly why not very well.

The liberal plan is not to get their message on the air. it's to get the conservative message off....something that people don't understand yet. Let me explain it to you this way. If you enjoy listening to a station that plays classical music and, for some reason, that station is then required to play rap music (which you don't like) intermingled with the classical selections, what will you do? Many people would simply stop listening to that station. That, in my opinion, is what the liberals are aiming for. They have enough evidence that liberal talk shows just don't fare very well so their only other choice is to find some way to close down the conservative shows. They can't simply ban them (that little thing called the constitution stops them there) so they can just make them unattractive by diluting them with equal portions of what the public doesn't care for until the people just stop listening.

Very sneaky little fellows...I'll give them credit for that.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


22 posted 01-21-2009 12:49 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Hi, Bob, again, thanks for the reply.

  The problem, as I see it, is one of perception.  People mistakenly think that the public own the radio stations and ergo have the right to either outright dictate programming or balance it.  That’s totally wrong.  Here’s why:  the ONLY reason that radio and TV is federally regulated has to do with the broadcast band the stations broadcast on.  The fear was that if the Feds didn’t enforce how many stations could operate on a bandwidth without stepping on the other’s signal, that people would not voluntarily agree to a finite number of stations within a broadcasting area.  In an interesting footnote to history, radio stations in the 20's till mid 40's had wandering signals.  That is, they were found on the radio dial in 'general area' but they'd constantly move it around for a clearer signal to avoid someone elses signal.
So the Feds created the FCC which felt that the Movie Industry’s standards should also pertain to TV/Radio.  When the FCC allocated the radio stations, 1000’s of owners spread the broadcasting diversity all over the nation.  

  Fast forward 40 years:  AM radio rules over TV in popularity &  Top 40 is a daily part of people’s lives.  As towns changed, markets changed and smaller radio stations were managed, in a co-op way, and grouped together in similar formats (like Country,  Top 40).  Owners were consolidated.  People have a tendency to buy ‘like interests.’   FM radio came into fruition, forever dooming the music part of AM radio.  So what could they do to survive?  They needed to be able to broadcast a product that didn’t need ‘great fidelity.’  Everyone knows how scratchy AM Radio music sounds.  So they went to almost exclusive to Talk formats.  The rest of the AM stations went to religious broadcasting.   The bottom line is that all this was based on evolution of an industry, a natural outgrowth.  It adjusts itself and doesn’t need pampering by the government.    AM-Talk has the smallest audiences in all broadcasting,
yet Pelosi keeps advocating the ‘danger’ of these talk shows.    ohhhhhhh very scarry!    To be sure, however, Cable News Shows would ALSO be victimized by the Fairness Doctrine.   Does anyone REALLY advocate that the government TELL us what should be broadcast?   All this dumb law needs is an ‘aggrieved party.’  That’s it.

Are we going to apply this standard to some controversial parody show, like South Park, for instance?  And they’ll have to balance 5 minutes of anti-fat jokes with 5 minutes of anti-skinny jokes?  Where would it end?  Essentially ANY application of an idea would be fodder for an equal time complaint.

Jeff

Footnote:  you know that new Analog to Digital conversion coming up?  Everybody asks the same question:  WHY are they doing this??
To increase bandwidth on AM FM and TV signals.  They are opening up the Broadcast markets to an  almost infinite number of competitors in each broadcasting area.

STILL think we need the 'Fairness' Doctrine?
WTBAKELAR
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 09-09-2008
Posts 1083
Utah, USA


23 posted 01-21-2009 12:04 PM       View Profile for WTBAKELAR   Email WTBAKELAR   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WTBAKELAR

Can anybody tell me:
1. Will the Fairness Act (FA) require ALL broadcast media to HIRE equally 50/50 conservitive and liberal employees?
2. Will Universities be required to have a 50/50 mix of professors?
3. Who will monitor the amount of time each view has, how will every media be regulated or fined?
4. Will the program "The View" have to fire some of the liberal view ladies and hire a few more Conservatives?
5. Will NBC have to project both liberal and conservative views or are they just concerned with FOX?
6. Will "WE THE PEOPLE" be forced to listen to both sides of the isle, or will common sense overcome the law makers and maybe they will realize that "WE THE PEOPLE" have the right to turn on or off what we want, and really don't need them to babysit our brains?

I believe that we should have the right to honest media, fair media, and intellegent choices.  
I also, believe I am smart enough to make those choices by myself. (I may be wrong on that last one)  WT.

The answer is always NO, Until the question is asked.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


24 posted 01-21-2009 01:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Threadbear,

           The public doesn't own the radio or television stations, nor did I ever think they did.

     The public does own the airwaves, and station owners must earn the right to use them by paying money and obeying the laws that protect the public interest, making sure that the airwaves are used in the public interest and not purely for profit.  

     The information about the wandering signals in the early days of radio was interesting.  It was in the interest of the owners of the radio stations to have assigned frequencies so they could sell a guaranteed product and assure their advertisers a measurable audience impact.  

     As far as I know, there are no bills in the offing to bring back the fairness doctrine, though personally I think it wouldn't be a bad idea and I have said so.  I notice that you ignored my suggestion that equal time be written into some hypothetical law only for falsehoods or lies promulgated by broadcasters.  I still think that would be an excellent basis for such a law, though I see no law of any sort in the works at this point.  Pity.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinsta   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors