Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on May 03, 2007, 04:37:49 PM
-
HR 3302: Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (http://www.mediaproblem.com/congress/billinfo.php?id=157)
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.
-
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.
-
Item 2:
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 It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts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:
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Fox News already does this, wheres the problem? ;)
:rofl
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?
-
Originally posted by Vudak
:rofl
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
It does sound like the liberals are sore because Fox News is dominating the market. Shades of George Orwell if they have their way.
-
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
-
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.
-
Sounds it would be just as bad or worse then being forced to hear Rush's daily talkshow
-
being forced to listen to anything would be bad.
Or did you miss that point... maybe they glossed over that in your school.
lazs
-
We used to have a law that prevented owning all media, but it got pwned
-
If the old law meant that all I could listen too was network news and cnn..
the law deserved to be pawned.. and the pawn ticket thrown away.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If the old law meant that all I could listen too was network news and cnn..
the law deserved to be pawned.. and the pawn ticket thrown away.
lazs
No, it was to prevent one person from owning all media. Ok, you have four major TV networks in town, cbs, nbc, abc and fox, you couldn't own more than one. It was made to keep the media unbiased, you had many different sources of information.
As opposed to Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner owning all four
-
they all seem to be touting the same liberal socialist line to me anyway so who cares who owns em?
the bill is simply a sour grapes thing from liberals because they can't compete in talk radio. No one wants to listen to them so they want to force us to.
That is really all it is about... the main ingredient is the "fairness doctrine"
A clean bill that limited the amount of market any one company could own would be fine.
I would like to see NPR not be the only tax subsidized radio station too... either stop funding it or fund a right wing station to balance it. I much prefer the former.
lazs
-
If this hurts Clear Channel, I'm all for it.
-
If censorship hurt clear channel you would be all for it?
lazs
-
Folks....mega-owners like Clear Channel ARE censorship.
I did radio for 23 years, mainly morning shows in Top 50 markets (Raleigh/Durham, Richmond, Milwaukee, etc.), and yes, I even worked for Clear Channel.
Have an idea, thought, side on an issue that THEY didn't agree with and find yourself without a job. If you remotely knew what was going on behind those walls you would be shocked and dissapointed that so few could hold power over what so many hear in this country.
Before the early 1990's, listeners had Bressler's 33 flavors or quality radio programming. You had to work hard and be talented to succeed and be rewarded with great ratings.
Now...automation, voice tracking, and the satallite dish deliver one flavor...VANILLA.
The mega-owners like Clear Channel, Cumulus, etc. gobbled up stations like a corporate Pacman and made hundreds of thousands of people
unemployed in the name of "consolodation".
Stations that were #1 with a 21 share 15 years ago struggle to get a 4 share in their target audience, and things are so bad that many general sales managers are selling based on VOLUME, not ratings.
GOOD LUCK if their is a tornado warning in your area and the EAS system fails to fire off, because no one is there to go on live and warn you that your backside is about to go airborne.
Radio on this country was built on the huge responsibility to "serve the public interest and necessity".
Radio, since federal deregulation, has only served to pad the bank accounts of millionaires who saw a loophole and a weekness in law and exploited it.
You get vanilla.
-
I see your mouth moving, but all I'm hearing is this high pitched whining sound.
-
I could care less about politics...I'm talking about QUALITY.
Do a little research.
Do a google search for "radio, 1970-1995, airchecks air checks" and listen for awhile.
Wolfman Jack, The Greaseman, Larry Lujack, Steve Dahl, Garry Meier, Johnathan Brandmeier....
Maybe you have been fed vanilla for so long you have no idea what Rocky Road is.
68ROX
-
If the stations were so great (and I am old enough to scratch my head over that) .....
Then how did clear channel gobble em all up?
lazs
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
Folks....mega-owners like Clear Channel ARE censorship.
B I N G O
-
Originally posted by Sandman
B I N G O
Censorship is the government dictating what can and can't be said in public, not a private organization choosing what to report.
-
HOW DARE YOU INTRODUCE LOGIC INTO THIS ARGUMENT!?!
-
Don't confuse logic with an argument over semantics.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Don't confuse logic with an argument over semantics.
There's nothing semantic about it. Except for the argument over whether or not the argument is semantic.
Then you can whip out your Magic of the Semantii card.
-
If you really want your government in charge of reporting the news you can find that in China or the Middle East. Of course you will have to convert to Communism or Islam.
-
If radio is bad people will not listen to it and then the advertisers will stop and then it will go broke.
The only ones who will survive will be the government funded ones like NPR. or... ones that people want to listen to.
If the bill were about how much of the market one can own tho... and only that... it would not be near so evil.
but.. it includes a "fairness doctrine" which simply means that stations can't have an opinion or pander to an audience without giving equal time to the left. And that is what it is really about.. the left is angry because the free market.. given a choice.. people don't like em..or.. enough don't that they are leaving the dinasour media like TV and newspapers in droves.
lazs
-
When ANY entity (government. business, judicial, social, etc.) that makes a decision about what you, Joe Citizen, gets to hear/see/read, is a form of censorship. Again, as I stated above, I did not post here to dabble in politics.
I posted to prove a point on how badly the QUALITY of the media, especially RADIO has become SINCE federal (FCC) deregulation.
How did mega-owners like Clear Channel and Cumulus get the chance to form near monopolies in most all markets in America in the first place?
Good question!
Since the Federal Radio Acts of 1912 (requiring all passenger fare paying ships at sea to have Morse Code radios and operators on board because of the Titanic disaster)...1929, and 1933 (where technology of AM and "voice" communications needed to be federally regulated) federal regulations prohibited a newspaper from owning a radio or tv station....it also prohibited any one owner from owning more than one AM and more than one FM in any given geographical market (say....70-90 miles from any one given town or city).
FCC deregulation in 1979 and 1980 changed that.
Within a couple of years, the FCC board was petitioned by radio station owners (big money, Like ABC, NBC, Jacor, Prisim, Clear Channel) to allow one owner to own up to two FM's and up to 4 AM's in any given market...as AM radio's dominance was begining to wane in the "ears" of the listeners.
AM radio was running it's course as static, fading, and sometimes interferance in the fringes of AM radio range can suffer...as FM usually has crisp, clear stereo sound. Music stations were abandoning AM in droves to get FM licences. Talk/News radio stayed with AM, and continues to be the anchor of most AM markets today.
By the early 1990's, the FCC was officially petitioned again by big corporate radio and granted another deregulatory action that allowed big owners to own up to 4 FM's and as many as 6 AM stations.
That's when the small mom & pop owners caved in to big money offers and sold out to the mega owners. When the poster above, scratching his head wondering how highly rated successful stations get gobbled up? Easy...MONEY. Independant mom & pop's got an offer they couldn't refuse. Money TALKS.
Seeing even more profit on the horizon, the bigger mega-owners began gobbling up the smaller mega-owners...Clear Channel bought out Jacor (headquartered in Cinncinatti) and then bought out Prism (which I worked for, headquartered in Tuscon).
CBS bought out a number of smaller mega-owners and took over their stations. Cumulus did the same thing.
Since deregulation, mega-owners fired (in the name of "consolidation") most of the talented air talent who had experience and high ratings and replaced them with folks just out of college and broadcasting schools to save money. With very little experience behind the mic....quality suffered, and some listeners went to satalite radio, or just listend to CD's as a result.
Radio listenership and station profitability fell drastically after the late 90's.
Now, people are saying "why does radio suck"? Why should I have to PAY for satallite radio for quality programming? I SHOULD get quality programming FREE on my radio!
That's why you are starting to see legislation put forward to reverse some of the damage done by companies who form near monopolies in the name of profit...not competition and serving the public interest.
Left, right, politics? I could care less. I do not care about radio as an employment venue for my self as I got out 7 years ago. I'm my own boss now.
I just think it's a shame that you younger folks turn on the radio and get voice-tracking/automation/satallite oat-meal-vanilla crap programming, when I grew up listening to some of the best air talent of our time.
Yesterday I dove 215 miles through a wall of severe thunderstorms and tornado warnings...punching the radio dial from station to station looking for weather information--only to find NOTHING. Over 2 hours of looking for needed safety info and all I heard was generic voice tracking.
I remember doing afternoons at WZZU-FM in Raleigh/Durham, and setting my funny material aside to stop down and do minute-to-minute tornado warning tracking so the public would have fair warning to take cover.
It's the responsible thing to do.
Somehow, now, radio depends on the EAS system going into auto-override mode and warning you, when sadly, many times it doesn't--and you think you are safe. All the while the studio is dark, the automated voice tracking plugs along, and the studio request line goes unanswered.
Last winter's tornados in Florida killed people because while the tv station EAS and live personel went into action to warn people, some of the local radio stations EAS failed.
I can understand why some people want a change.
Me, I listen to CD's.
68ROX
-
68 I call BS.
radio was failing in your version of the "golden age" too many commercials and nothing worth listening to. AM was all but dead with it's music stations.. it was the pervue of local religious stations and the farm report.
Talk radio revived a dying industry.. gave people a reason to even use the damn am... it spilled over to FM but it is talk radio that is making the money.
No one wants to listen to oldies on the radio and no one wants to listen to the crap that is new music and... as is being found out... no one wants to listen to left wing radio.
They do want to listen to right wing and conservative hosts.. to most.. it is the only conservative view they get... it is a counterpoint to all the newspapers and evening left wing TV news.
That is what the "fairness doctrine" is all about... it is about getting rid of and silencing the right and the conservatives.... How dare they have an audience.
The left fears talk radio and this is just proof. They fear it like they fear Fox news.. they love to make fun of it but the reality is that they do it out of fear. They know that if they let even one outlet show the other side then they are lost.
lazs