Author Topic: Probably a good idea... (Read 1001 times)

midnight Target · « **on:** May 03, 2007, 04:37:49 PM »

HR 3302: Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005

Gets us back to the good old days.

I've seen post after post in here extolling the virtues of those days when TV was responsible and radio was fun. This bill will limit the ownership of the media and reduce the info-conglomerates that feed us their veresion of news as they see fit. It is about time.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2007, 04:48:43 PM »

If the fairness doctorine listed is the ploy by the dems to make radio stations do an hour of "conservitive" radio then an Hour of "Liberal" radio then the whole bill needs to die.

If there was a market for liberal talk Radio Air america would be popular.

The government dictating content other then for decency is a scary thing.

Other then that breaking up the big media companies does not seem like a horrible idea.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2007, 04:50:18 PM »

Item 2:

Quote

The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts

Fox News already does this, wheres the problem?

Here is a good commentary that I agree with:

Quote

While liberals hold a virtual monopoly on broadcast television and print news, many on the left just can’t stomach the reality of a dominant conservative presence on talk radio. They want to give Mr. Franken and his pessimism and rage-filed talk radio comrades something they could not obtain on their own – market share.

This is why liberals are so eager to bring back a roundly rejected and blatantly unconstitutional piece of government intrusiveness know as the Fairness Doctrine. And Hinchey is ready to do the heavy lifting with his Media Ownership Reform Act, which includes reinstatement of the doctrine. If it passes, the legislation would force radio stations that air conservative talk shows to also air liberal shows – regardless of listener interest or sponsor support.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2007/02/20/liberals_aren%E2%80%99t_very_good_at_talk_radio

Nope. I don't support it. Keep Government out of it.

BiGBMAW · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2007, 04:54:51 PM »

lolol liberal linguini limpwristed radio died...

now they are trying to make it law..

Liek Micheal Svage says..He will have 10 million peopel marching on Washington the day thsi becoems a law

pure Socialist weenie loser cry baby crap

Vudak · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2007, 04:58:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort

Fox News already does this, wheres the problem?

I don't even think any television news should be able to have "news" in its name. They're all a complete joke.

The only way television news will ever be fair and balanced is if it is presented monotone, and who the heck wants to watch that?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #5 on:** May 03, 2007, 05:05:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vudak

I don't even think any television news should be able to have "news" in its name. They're all a complete joke.

The only way television news will ever be fair and balanced is if it is presented monotone, and who the heck wants to watch that?

Agreed. That's why I don't watch TV except for local news occasionally and football. (Sometimes Discovery channel has some good stuff on)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #6 on:** May 03, 2007, 07:09:48 PM »

something we are forgetting as well.....>CLEAR CHANNEL!

They own something like 95% of radio as it is, to include talk radio. Forcing stations the stations that aren't owned by the radio conglomerate to play stuff their listeners don't want to hear will drive DOWN ad revenue and costs up shrinking there allready slim profit margins.

I agree, break up the big media companies. Then go after the RIAA and the MPAA for their legal extortion tactics.

I'm all for free market but sometimes the counter needs to be reset when there's no room at all for competition.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 03, 2007, 07:28:32 PM »

has air america died its well deserved death yet? The amount of pure hate randi rhodes could fill 4 hours with was astounding. Not to mention Malloy and Garafolo.

lazs2 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 04, 2007, 09:14:06 AM »

mt.. are you saying that you think it is a good idea to tell the radio stations what they can and can't say outside of profanity?

That you think it is a good idea to force them to sit back and let opposing views air?

NPR never does this... they are total left wing. I like to listen to them and then a right wing station. I am not dumb enough to think that either will not subtly get their positions across... I want it out in the open.

That is the problem... liberals like their agenda hidden... they want to appear fair but still control. I don't read papers or watch news on TV because it is so left wing and depressing... Now you want to get rid of the last honest source of news.. radio?

I don't care what the agenda so long as it is out in the open and the facts are correct... If you take right wing radio and compare it to NPR tho.. you will see that NPR not only can't make it on its own or compete but that it is dishonest... it will never admit that it is left wing.

I see equal amounts of bias in both NPR and the right wing radio station I listen to... the only difference is I am not forced to pay for the right wing station with my taxes. and.. the right wing one is more honest about their bias.. by far more honest.

Why do liberals hide their agenda so much? why? because no one would listen to em if they told us what they really wanted.

lazs

AKIron · « **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2007, 07:30:44 PM »

1) invalidate all of the FCC's 2003 media ownership rule rewrite (an appeals court only remanded the rules for a re-do), and reinstate the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule the local TV multiple ownership rule that the FCC scrapped in the 2003 rewrite;

Don't know what the rewrite did, anyone?

2)restore the fairness doctrine;

Don't know what this is, anyone?

3) lower the cap on TV station ownership from the 39% (raised by Congress) back to to 25%;

Sounds good to me.

4) reduce the number of radio and TV stations a company can own;

Sounds good to me.

5) increase the number of public interest obligations on all broadcasters;

What would this mean?

6) get rid of the UHF discount "loophole" that counts only half a UHF station's audience reach toward ownership caps.

UHF? Thought that died with CBS.

oboe · « **Reply #10 on:** May 05, 2007, 08:15:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
...I'm all for free market but sometimes the counter needs to be reset when there's no room at all for competition.

Government intervention in the marketplace. It's an idea fraught with problems but then so are the excesses caused by unregulated free market capitalism (as we have seen so many times in the past).

There are no perfect solutions, but sometimes reasonable ones. It all depends on what we think is fair and what kind of economic society we'd like to see.

~~Gunslinger.~~

lazs2 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 05, 2007, 08:57:30 AM »

the fairness doctrine is.. if you interview a KKK member then you would have to give the same time to some "black leader"... If you speak with one political party or mention them then you must speak with the other (all others?) equal time and mention them equally..

It is a snake pit. Who decides? I have heard people who say that NPR is fair and balanced.. they say it themselves.. it is bull. They have an hour every day now on what to do about man made global warming... should they have to give an hour every day to scientists who don't believe that we are causing any real warming?

They have a "public opinion" speech by citizens and in the news people every day... I have never heard one who did not espouse a liberal socialist view... should every one of those be "balanced"?

Liberals (and democrats) are simply angry because people are tuning out of the medias they control like newspapers, magazines and TV and tuning into talk radio and.. they are tuning into talk radio that lambasts liberals... Given a choice.. people don't listen to liberals. They have to be forced.

What is next? the internet? I am sure that there are plenty of liberals and socialists who would love to see this BB "balanced" but would fight tooth and nail to keep NPR, and move on dot org and the other far left corners of the internet just as they are.

Liberals are not about fariness... they are about not letting the other view be heard.. they are about PC and hate crimes and arresting or silencing scientists who won't tow the line.

lazs

AKIron · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2007, 09:21:28 AM »

It does sound like the liberals are sore because Fox News is dominating the market. Shades of George Orwell if they have their way.

lazs2 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 06, 2007, 09:33:35 AM »

beware when the people who are the least interested in fairness ask for a "fairness doctrine"

there are liberals out there that think john stewarts show is not biased.

So do we "balance" comedy too? Do we balance every column written or book?

What about the internet?

What about schools? Do we make sure that there are the same number of liberal and conservative teachers and that any view the kids here needs the counter view expressed?

What do you want to bet that liberals oppose "fairness" of ideas in schools?

lazs

AKIron · « **Reply #14 on:** May 06, 2007, 09:48:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
What do you want to bet that liberals oppose "fairness" of ideas in schools?

lazs

I'd bet they aren't as fair or open minded as they'd have us believe since they are already fighting tooth and nail at the mere suggestion of intelligent design or creationism being taught in the schools.