E
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
J
JohnAllan
Guest
It's simple, Liberal talk cannot compete in the free market place, therefore they want to get rid of conservative talk. They might kill talk radio, but they can't control the internet, YET....
E
evnlee
Guest
RBA said:
Well, that settles it then. Hillary's word is bond... Clinton's never lie
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Now your hero is backtracking on his story saying it was 3 years ago he heard the conversation.
So, it has been true for some time then! That makes it even worse.
So, it has been true for some time then! That makes it even worse.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Members of the jury,
Ain't watching someone trying to refute something by resorting to personal attacks fun!
First, a denial is posted as some sort of "proof" it never happened, even though the denial came from someone well known for losing her memory of past events. Look at her past performances on the witness stand.
Then, the second attempt at spin is that it happened, but it happened a long time ago. Presumeably that is supposed to mean some sort of statute of limitations has expired.
Third, when the "it was a long time ago defense" is shot down, we get a personal attack against those who are simply the bearers of the news. Does anyone thing that if a conservative used the phrase "the dumbing down of America" to describe anything a liberal posted that there wouldn't be an outcry, and probably a few dozen reports to the moderators?
Sometimes the way in which people attempt to defend their positions causes more harm to their side than silence would.
Ain't watching someone trying to refute something by resorting to personal attacks fun!
First, a denial is posted as some sort of "proof" it never happened, even though the denial came from someone well known for losing her memory of past events. Look at her past performances on the witness stand.
Then, the second attempt at spin is that it happened, but it happened a long time ago. Presumeably that is supposed to mean some sort of statute of limitations has expired.
Third, when the "it was a long time ago defense" is shot down, we get a personal attack against those who are simply the bearers of the news. Does anyone thing that if a conservative used the phrase "the dumbing down of America" to describe anything a liberal posted that there wouldn't be an outcry, and probably a few dozen reports to the moderators?
Sometimes the way in which people attempt to defend their positions causes more harm to their side than silence would.
Radio_Realist said:
LOL, there was no defense of " it was said a long time ago". Please, get hold of yourself. Inhoffe (global warming denier) changes his story is the defense. First it was the other day and now it's 3 years ago? Isn't it funny when the mud slingers can't even get their lies straight? The witness has lost all crediblity with his conflicting statements.
E
evnlee
Guest
RBA said:
gotta love the 'global warming denier' dig....yeah, questioning a scientific 'consensus' ( which in fact there is no consensus) is 'dumbing down America', but blindly believing a politician's book and movie isn't. :
I agree that Inhofe's excuse does not look good~ but if I have to choose between the 2......
It's not hard to believe that she would want to 'fix' talk radio, since the latest report by the CAP, 2 Congressmen, and one libtalk host ( RFK ) have already expressed thier interest in doing just that.
RBA said:evnlee said:RBA said:
Well, that settles it then. Hillary's word is bond... Clinton's never lie
Clever. Not. Now your hero is backtracking on his story saying it was 3 years ago he heard the conversation. lol
No surprise. When caught in one lie, make up another.
He told KFI it happened this week. He changed the story when it turned out Clinton wasn't even IN Washington when Inhofe supposedly overheard this. On a good day, Inhofe is delusional. Remember, this is the guy who said global warming was, in part, a plot by the Weather Channel to gin up ratings.
Now if you're Drudge or one of the non-thinking right wing blogs that feel this is the go-to guy for facts, if you want to live your life fancy fact-free like Inhofe does, more power to you. But the next time someone drops a Drudge cookie in here, we've just been handed yet another example of why those who rely on him for news destroy their own credibility and depth just by quoting the guy. Talk about a credibility non-starter.
The laughs just keep on coming from the right as they once again spray Obsession all over the place when it comes to very existence of talk radio that doesn't read from their talking points. And when the facts don't go their way, just make some new ones up!
evnlee said:gotta love the 'global warming denier' dig....yeah, questioning a scientific 'consensus' ( which in fact there is no consensus) is 'dumbing down America', but blindly believing a politician's book and movie isn't. :
On the Fact Foundation, I'd say the guy who believes in over 1,000 scientists who say global warming is a very real threat is on safer ground than the guy who listens to the handful of deniers who are funded by the energy industry (and I thought prostitution was illegal!) who would tell you the earth was flat too if you just add another zero onto their check.
Excuse doesn't cut it. It's a flat out fabrication. He didn't think he was going to get called out on this after fact-checking him. If you listen to his original bit on KFI, you can hear his realization he's in a boat that has sprung a fact leak when the hosts first pin him down on what exactly was said and then get him to expose who said it. Right after that, you'll hear his assertive directness instantly transform into an uncomfortable shift away from the specifics of the topic.
There's a surprise. You already suspect the players of being involved in some nefarious deed and when Inhofe pulls something straight out of his butt to confirm it, the whole right wing blogosphere goes bananas and touts it as "fact" and then it blows up in their faces. But in their minds, that doesn't mean maybe there is a problem with veracity of the original argument. They just quickly bury their faux pas and wait for the next person to "confirm" it.
That's why the AAR critics who attack anything resembling libtalk like Baloney are so easy to debate. They'll go to any length to defend their position, right down to trashing their own credibility by using clearly suspect sources and wrapping themselves and their credibility around them, only to have it blow up in their face. And one wonders why anyone who quotes from these people are laughed off around here.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
But in their minds, that doesn't mean maybe there is a problem with veracity of the original argument.
The thing is, there have been plenty of well-documented public statements by many leading Democrat politicians calling for the government to "do something" about conservative talk radio. The fact that one person who repeated overhearing such a statement didn't write down all the details of the time and place of hearing the conversation, and then writing it down and getting it notarized, or better yet, recorded on a secret digital recording device implanted under his skin doesn't make it implausible.
Those who support the career of the former First Lady and her quest for more fame and fortune conveniently overlook her convenient memory lapses. She's supposedly the smartest woman in the world, but he can't remember any details about anything controversial that might make her look bad, but she remembers everything else.
There's a very simple reason for the willingness of almost everyone to believe that Hilary Clinton wants to see the government "do something" about conservative talk radio. That's because it is consistent with her reputation for hard nosed political in-fighting. Even her supporters agree that she is ruthless street fighter who plays dirty. They simply regard her lack of standards or personal ethics as a positive thing. If she doesn't get elected President, she would make a good executive for a major broadcasting company, where ruthlessness and a total lack of concern for anyone who can't do them some good is a prime qualification requirement.
She'd also make a good liberal talk show host, since she has no regard for truth, only for advancing her own agenda to achieve personal power. Combine that with her ability to pretend to have empathy for others when it suits her, and her ability to turn into a shrill sounding shrew, and you have the female liberal version of Michael Savage. She even wrote a crappy but expensive book which her supporters bought by the carton, and quickly sent to landfills.
The thing is, there have been plenty of well-documented public statements by many leading Democrat politicians calling for the government to "do something" about conservative talk radio. The fact that one person who repeated overhearing such a statement didn't write down all the details of the time and place of hearing the conversation, and then writing it down and getting it notarized, or better yet, recorded on a secret digital recording device implanted under his skin doesn't make it implausible.
Those who support the career of the former First Lady and her quest for more fame and fortune conveniently overlook her convenient memory lapses. She's supposedly the smartest woman in the world, but he can't remember any details about anything controversial that might make her look bad, but she remembers everything else.
There's a very simple reason for the willingness of almost everyone to believe that Hilary Clinton wants to see the government "do something" about conservative talk radio. That's because it is consistent with her reputation for hard nosed political in-fighting. Even her supporters agree that she is ruthless street fighter who plays dirty. They simply regard her lack of standards or personal ethics as a positive thing. If she doesn't get elected President, she would make a good executive for a major broadcasting company, where ruthlessness and a total lack of concern for anyone who can't do them some good is a prime qualification requirement.
She'd also make a good liberal talk show host, since she has no regard for truth, only for advancing her own agenda to achieve personal power. Combine that with her ability to pretend to have empathy for others when it suits her, and her ability to turn into a shrill sounding shrew, and you have the female liberal version of Michael Savage. She even wrote a crappy but expensive book which her supporters bought by the carton, and quickly sent to landfills.
E
evnlee
Guest
Phillip Dampier said:
Phillip , we've been through this before. You seem to say 'I am suspecting these people of engaging in some nefarious deed' when the facts are, H.R. 4069 was introduced, and many prominent Democrat politicians have openly spoken out in favor of it, and a return to the 'Fairness Doctrine', or something similar to it. You guys can disguise you true intent by hiding behind 'ownership caps, diversity, or the public interest' but it's plainly clear that conservative talk radio presents a threat, and your side ( along with some weak sisters like Trent Lott ) is attempting to silence them. That's not disputable.
I leave you 2 links to review:
".. recent debates over media ownership and indecency regulation on Capitol Hill have illustrated "that what Congress wants is a media obedient to its will," in the words of a recent Broadcasting & Cable editorial. What media critics propose is for government to exert more control over media in America in the name of expanding choice and "preserving democracy."
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040420-tk-2.html
Richard Salant, head of CBS News while the Fairness Doctrine was flourishing, said to me:
"Suppose the English government had told Tom Paine that he could go ahead and publish all he liked—but only if at the back of his pamphlets he also printed the Royal Governor's views. That command, far from an implementation of free speech, would have been just the opposite. It's a restriction of speech if, in order to be allowed to express your own views, [the government demands] you also have to present those of someone arguing on the other side. "
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2006/01/
We don't have to 'make this stuff up' it had already happened, and the debate is occurring right in front of us..
evnlee said:
Of course it is. Because conservatives keep redressing this as some nefarious censorship of right wingers on the radio. There isn't a shred of evidence of that, but the paranoia parade continues. If Trent Lott is a "weak sister" for Republicans these days, it's amazing how far to the right some people are going.
There is no left wing movement to silence conservative talk radio.
In fact, when it comes to silencing alternative viewpoints, the rampant attacks and paranoia about the concept of Air America seems to have the right wing far more upset than liberals seeking -something- on the radio dial beyond Savage and friends. We've already moved far beyond the Fairness Doctrine, because there is finally something alternative to right wing talk. It annoys the hell out of conservatives, but it is still on the air.
What the argument has moved to today are questions about why certain radio groups refuse to distribute libtalk shows to their stations which get higher ratings than some conservative counterparts. Ed Schultz does great with one Infinity station, but the group told him it won't carry his show on any other station. Why? They don't want to say, so far. I think Schultz is on to something as he handily dispenses with the "if the market wants it" argument, which he has demonstrated isn't what is going on here.
If you have a radio group that simply refuses to carry alternatives to conservative talk radio despite left wing talk being able to get good ratings, and that group controls hundreds of radio stations across the country in the public interest, Schultz is asking is it in the public interest for corporate radio groups to not be willing to serve the 50%+ of the population which doesn't vote the same way Rush does.
I suspect this is an issue that gets resolved by shining light on it in Congress. Suddenly you'll probably see stations being willing to mix it up a bit more, if only to keep the concept of a Fairness Doctrine at bay.
My personal opinion is that corporate radio groups should be broken up and much, much stricter ownership limits be placed on stations. It increases the diversity of ownership. The deregulation of radio that allowed massive corporate ownership of the medium has been a disaster, and listeners are fleeing.
Coming from the Cato Institute, there are no surprises here. What is surprising is that it's a columnist giving much more opinion than fact and it's from 2004, more than three years ago, making it ancient history, so there is nothing to respond to there.
A high school student could handily dismiss this argument. As you and everyone else knows, you do not need a license to print a pamphlet or newspaper because there is no limitation of access. Broadcasters exist in a limited spectrum, limiting the number of possible speakers. Therefore radio and television stations are licensed to serve the public interest (ALL the public, not just one segment of it). They agreed to that when they applied for their license. Even in the wildest paranoia of those who fear the Fairness Doctrine, such legislation would not require Rush to turn over 50% of his airtime to Nancy Pelosi. Instead, you might hear a 30-90 second "response" to some point made on the station. Cry me a river over that. And again, I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is ultimately going to be the issue here - media ownership will be.
What I find so particularly fascinating about this particular thread is how it seems to take its own twists and turns through total absurdity.
In the discussion of fairness, where did global warming ever find a place? How about a little focus and economy of words. Obviously some have never had editors looking over their shoulders.
Calls for the fairness doctrine's return are an inappropriate reaction to what has become mostly conservative radio stations.
What is needed is a return to balance. Stations need to have a variety of viewpoints on their airwaves. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, even the occassional "off the wall" flako. All are good and there is an audience for all. Instead what I hear in traveling the country is a cacophony of one note samba talk show hosts. It is like listening to a room full of parrots. No original thought. No looking beyond the obvious.
The other missing element? Most of these ladies and gentlemen don't listen to answers, fail to do their homework and hardly ever ask a decent question. They suceed 'cause there is a paucity of anything else on the airwaves. The liberal "entertainers" are no better than the "conservative" ones. Sometimes in the larger markets you can get impressed by someone...but don't worry, medocrity is not far away.
In the discussion of fairness, where did global warming ever find a place? How about a little focus and economy of words. Obviously some have never had editors looking over their shoulders.
Calls for the fairness doctrine's return are an inappropriate reaction to what has become mostly conservative radio stations.
What is needed is a return to balance. Stations need to have a variety of viewpoints on their airwaves. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, even the occassional "off the wall" flako. All are good and there is an audience for all. Instead what I hear in traveling the country is a cacophony of one note samba talk show hosts. It is like listening to a room full of parrots. No original thought. No looking beyond the obvious.
The other missing element? Most of these ladies and gentlemen don't listen to answers, fail to do their homework and hardly ever ask a decent question. They suceed 'cause there is a paucity of anything else on the airwaves. The liberal "entertainers" are no better than the "conservative" ones. Sometimes in the larger markets you can get impressed by someone...but don't worry, medocrity is not far away.
E
evnlee
Guest
justareporter said:
What I find interesting is that the hue and cry for 'balance' occurs only after the opposing side lost 2 presidential elections, and regained majority status in Congress...Where was the call for 'balance' during Clinton's term? It may have happened occasionally, but not like the frequency that we see now...
Back then, my liberal friends ( they were brave enough to call themselves that then, not 'progressive') were told 'aww, just ignore those guys...They dont matter...Keep tuned to NPR, and dont forget to wash out your recyclables, now.."
Of course, poor crybabies like Ed Schultz think 'the man' has it in for him. Boo hoo....Perhaps if some of the progressive hosts were 'entertaining' instead of 'mediocre', y'all wouldn't need the Govt to 'level the playing field '.
"But Michael Harrison, publisher of the Talkers trade magazine, said Monday he did not believe that liberal and conservative talk show hosts are judged by different standards.
"The only standards anyone is held to are ratings and revenue~ Liberal or progressive hosts face the same challenges that conservatives do."
While acknowledging the success of conservative Rush Limbaugh, Harrison said he "does not represent across-the-board radio. At his biggest and his best, he is only a small player in the broader picture of radio."
Harrison was also critical of the report and those who support its conclusions, saying it merely proves that "conservative talk radio is dominated by conservatives, just as sports talk stations are dominated by football."
The writers of the report "picked more than 200 stations owned by certain companies and created the impression that's all of talk radio, and that all of talk radio is dominated by conservatives," he said.
"Where's National Public Radio [in the report]?" Harrison asked. "Millions and millions of people - some of the biggest radio audiences in the country - are listening to NPR. It certainly is not conservative, but it certainly is talk."
In addition, Harrison asked, "Where are the top big stations in the country that are not owned by the top five companies? What about all these large stations that are owned by smaller companies?"
He said the same question could be asked of urban talk radio, shock jocks and the thousands of personalities who refuse to be categorized.
Harrison also pointed to what he referred to as "stationality."
"Stations that play rock don't like to play opera. What if you did a survey of the top 200 rock stations and found they're 95 percent rock and only five percent classical music? Would that mean opera is held to a different standard than rock?"
At least in my discussion who won and who lost the presidential contest has no bearing. Some may think otherwise (an clearly act that way) but this is not a sport. I might suggest that the call for "balance" is more about the call for a free and open discussion of issues rather than the current one page sheet of music. Please be so kind as to raise the level of discussion beyond that of simple political contests. The public deserves better.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
I might suggest that the call for "balance" is more about the call for a free and open discussion of issues rather than the current one page sheet of music. Please be so kind as to raise the level of discussion beyond that of simple political contests.
Are you simply calling to the universe to grant the sort of "balance" you describe, or do you have in mind some specific power or entity who would be empowered to bring about the balance that you seek? And, if you have some specific power or entity in mind who would grant this "balance", that wouldn't happen to be the Federal government of the United States of America, would it? Because if you want the government to have to power to enforce "balance", then there is no possible way to discuss said "balance" without discussing the politicians who run against each other in contested elections who would, if elected, have that enforcement power.
Can you not see that there can be no discussion of some power or entity enforcing your idea of "balance" without discussion the process by which the people who wield that power or who comprise that entity are selected?
Are you simply calling to the universe to grant the sort of "balance" you describe, or do you have in mind some specific power or entity who would be empowered to bring about the balance that you seek? And, if you have some specific power or entity in mind who would grant this "balance", that wouldn't happen to be the Federal government of the United States of America, would it? Because if you want the government to have to power to enforce "balance", then there is no possible way to discuss said "balance" without discussing the politicians who run against each other in contested elections who would, if elected, have that enforcement power.
Can you not see that there can be no discussion of some power or entity enforcing your idea of "balance" without discussion the process by which the people who wield that power or who comprise that entity are selected?
- Status